Raiders vs. Chiefs

[Adamixoye 604]

2 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

YPC doesn’t mean much when your Pro Bowl RB only gets 12 carries. And if you aren’t an explosive big play offense the only thing that means more than TOP are turnovers in my opinion. IE: If they don’t win the TOP, they aren’t winning minus turnovers by us. Its their strength and their only legit chance to win trying to put game in the hands of their oline, RB and short passing game. 
TOP means less to the Chiefs because we can score very quickly. At least when the oline is holding up enough to get our guys downfield. We don’t need to focus on that. The Raiders do. 

Well I'll just reiterate that analytics have shown TOP is a lot less important than most people think.  And it's more of a result of winning than the cause.

The whole point with regard to the Raiders is the idea that I don't agree with the suggestion that last time they just called the wrong plays, and if they commit to the run, they will give a huge problems.

[Chiefsfan1963 1,101]

Stop overthinking this. KC > Chokeland. KC wins tough divisional rivalry game, game is closer than it should be because of the history between the two. 

[dhitter 1,424]

Unfortunately we are poor at stopping what the Raiders are good at. The Jets were number one in run defense and they close fast on those short swing passes limiting YAC. Chiefs have struggled in both areas. I think we can score on them but no one should assume we will stop their offense like earlier.

[Mloe68 1,521]

1 hour ago, Adamixoye said:

Well I'll just reiterate that analytics have shown TOP is a lot less important than most people think.  And it's more of a result of winning than the cause.

The whole point with regard to the Raiders is the idea that I don't agree with the suggestion that last time they just called the wrong plays, and if they commit to the run, they will give a huge problems.

And again I think you are oversimplifying this. In my opinion it competely depends on the type of team you have and the type of team you are playing against. To use a basketball analogy a bad game plan would clearly be to go run with a team that's more athletic and deeper that you are. Same principal applies here. The Colts didn't want to get into a shootout here. They grinded out first downs and kept our offense off the field. Minimize possessions for the strength of our team and wear our defense down. I think this is what Grudens game plan will be all about this week. Play to their strength, not ours. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

1 hour ago, Chiefsfan1963 said:

Stop overthinking this. KC > Chokeland. KC wins tough divisional rivalry game, game is closer than it should be because of the history between the two. 

You seem to have a problem with people analyzing game plans and personell for some reason. That's what this board is all about. Where do our opponents have strengths, where can we exploit them, where can they exploit us. If this board is simply about nothing more than complaining about losses and cheering on wins, I would have little interest personally. 

[DieHard 2,061]

1 hour ago, Chiefsfan1963 said:

Stop overthinking this. KC > Chokeland. KC wins tough divisional rivalry game, game is closer than it should be because of the history between the two. 

Yep. We are at our best after a bye. We almost always when a hard fought game in the division. We are a far better team than the Raiders. 

The #28 passing defense is facing the #2 passing offense.  Chiefs by 10.

24-34

[Adamixoye 604]

4 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

And again I think you are oversimplifying this...They grinded out first downs and kept our offense off the field. Minimize possessions for the strength of our team and wear our defense down.

I'm not oversimplifying, I'm actually trying to make it more nuanced.  You're got two cliches here, "keeping the other offense off the field" and "minimizing possessions."  Teams basically trade possessions throughout a game.  Barring onside kicks or other bizarre things, teams end up +/- 1 possession of each other in a game (turnovers don't change this, each team still had the ball; for the purposes of this discussion, getting a D/ST TD would still be a "possession" for the scoring team).  The critical thing is points per possession.

I don't dispute that ball control can wear down a defense.  The other advantage of "keeping the other team off the field" is that you increase variance for the game in terms of total points.  So I'm not disputing that effectively running the ball and sustaining drives is productive.  But you can't eliminate a possession for Mahomes just by holding on to the ball.  He's going to get it and for the most part the other team is going to need to score more points per possession.  These ideas of ball control didn't totally make sense even before advanced analytics, and now they're pretty obsolete.

[reesebobby 5,663]

26 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

And again I think you are oversimplifying this. In my opinion it competely depends on the type of team you have and the type of team you are playing against. To use a basketball analogy a bad game plan would clearly be to go run with a team that's more athletic and deeper that you are. Same principal applies here. The Colts didn't want to get into a shootout here. They grinded out first downs and kept our offense off the field. Minimize possessions for the strength of our team and wear our defense down. I think this is what Grudens game plan will be all about this week. Play to their strength, not ours. 

The Colts are not the type of team we have had trouble with in the Mahomes era.  At least not a healthy Mahomes.  We lost 5 games last year by an average score of 40 to 36.  Teams that try to grind it out just don't score enough points to keep up. 

[qnet 1,150]

A lot of interesting analysis in this thread. My simple take on this game is if the Chiefs defense can get back to the way they played during Mahomes absence, they should have no problem with this game.  

[kkuenn 3,599]

41 to 17 chiefs 

[Adamixoye 604]

Just now, kkuenn said:

41 to 17 chiefs 

That would be nice.  Haven't had a comfy win since Denver.

[Mloe68 1,521]

53 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

I'm not oversimplifying, I'm actually trying to make it more nuanced.  You're got two cliches here, "keeping the other offense off the field" and "minimizing possessions."  Teams basically trade possessions throughout a game.  Barring onside kicks or other bizarre things, teams end up +/- 1 possession of each other in a game (turnovers don't change this, each team still had the ball; for the purposes of this discussion, getting a D/ST TD would still be a "possession" for the scoring team).  The critical thing is points per possession.

I don't dispute that ball control can wear down a defense.  The other advantage of "keeping the other team off the field" is that you increase variance for the game in terms of total points.  So I'm not disputing that effectively running the ball and sustaining drives is productive.  But you can't eliminate a possession for Mahomes just by holding on to the ball.  He's going to get it and for the most part the other team is going to need to score more points per possession.  These ideas of ball control didn't totally make sense even before advanced analytics, and now they're pretty obsolete.

Our offense hasn't been nearly as good this year but we still average 2.60 points per drive (by the way we were 3.25 PPD last season). By contrast the Raiders average 2.15 PPD. Wouldn't you agree then that the more possessions each team has in a game, the bigger the advantage the Chiefs have to beat the Raiders? More possession means an increasing advantage for our superior offense. Fewer possessions means the advantage is narrower. This goes beyond the reality we both agree on, which is that all that time on the field wears down a defense. Both the Texans and Colts absolutely destroyed us in TOP and limited us to a ridiculously low number of possessions, especially in the second half. Fresh defense gets a three and out, worn out defense allows a slow grind down the field. It matters SO much in my opinion. Only thing that trumps this are turnovers. 

Here's an Andy Reid quote after the Texas and Colts games.... “Our time of possession is way out of whack,” coach Andy Reid said. “So, when given opportunities to stay on the field, we’ve got to make sure we do that offensively and get off the field defensively.”

 

[Adamixoye 604]

6 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

Our offense hasn't been nearly as good this year but we still average 2.60 points per drive. By contrast the Raiders average 2.15 PPD. Wouldn't you agree then that the more possessions each team has in a game, the bigger the advantage the Chiefs have to beat the Raiders? More possession means an increasing advantage for our superior offense. Fewer possessions means the advantage is narrower. This goes beyond the reality we both agree on, which is that all that time on the field wears down a defense. Both the Texans and Colts absolutely destroyed us in TOP and limited us to a ridiculously low number of possessions, especially in the second half. Fresh defense gets a three and out, worn out defense allows a slow grind down the field. It matters SO much in my opinion. Only thing that trumps this are turnovers. 

Here's an Andy Reid quote after the Texas and Colts games.... “Our time of possession is way out of whack,” coach Andy Reid said. “So, when given opportunities to stay on the field, we’ve got to make sure we do that offensively and get off the field defensively.”

 

The bold part is just a restatement of what I said about fewer possessions increasing variance.  But that's a subtler concept than "keeping Mahomes off the field" or "limiting possessions."

Reid's quote doesn't mean much to me because he's shown a lack of understanding of advanced analytics in many areas, especially his aggressiveness in going for it.  He's a brilliant X and O's coach but his understanding of risk leaves a lot to be desired.

[Mloe68 1,521]

1 hour ago, reesebobby said:

The Colts are not the type of team we have had trouble with in the Mahomes era.  At least not a healthy Mahomes.  We lost 5 games last year by an average score of 40 to 36.  Teams that try to grind it out just don't score enough points to keep up. 

In the Mahomes era we are 8-1 with a TOP advantage, 11-8 when our opponent has the advantage. 

[WichitaZRide 321]

Hunter Renfro broke a rib and punctured his lung yesterday. That's Carr's #2 target.  If the Chiefs can stop the run like they did against the Vikings, we will win by 50 like Carr said yesterday

[Adamixoye 604]

7 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

In the Mahomes era we are 8-1 with a TOP advantage, 11-8 when our opponent has the advantage. 

That's because it's a symptom, not a cause.  When our offense is moving and the other team's is not, we get the TOP.  When our offense isn't as effective and/or the other team's is, we lose the TOP.  And even as it is, we're still above average when losing the TOP.

It's just like the stats about running back carries.  You don't magically win because you get your RB to 25 carries.  Your RB gets to 25 carries because you're winning.  Same with TOP.  If you win the game, you have a good chance of winning TOP (not perfect, as shown by your stats about us).  But you don't go out and try to win TOP in order to win the game.  Winning TOP happens as a side effect.

[artsy 1,137]

6 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

In the Mahomes era we are 8-1 with a TOP advantage, 11-8 when our opponent has the advantage. 

 

1 minute ago, WichitaZRide said:

Hunter Renfro broke a rib and punctured his lung yesterday. That's Carr's #2 target.  If the Chiefs can stop the run like they did against the Vikings, we will win by 50 like Carr said yesterday

Well the Jets just laid out the "no brainer" game plan to destroy the raiders:

Stop Jacobs and cover their pro bowl TE..Then exploit their weak ass secondary.

Game over.

[Chiefsfan1963 1,101]

2 hours ago, Mloe68 said:

You seem to have a problem with people analyzing game plans and personell for some reason. That's what this board is all about. Where do our opponents have strengths, where can we exploit them, where can they exploit us. If this board is simply about nothing more than complaining about losses and cheering on wins, I would have little interest personally. 

Say what you want about anything you want. My issue is every week you constantly worry about the other team and how great of either the running game is, their defense or both. So far this year you have been wrong much more than right. Almost like weather men and sports talk show host. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

1 hour ago, Adamixoye said:

The bold part is just a restatement of what I said about fewer possessions increasing variance.  But that's a subtler concept than "keeping Mahomes off the field" or "limiting possessions."

Reid's quote doesn't mean much to me because he's shown a lack of understanding of advanced analytics in many areas, especially his aggressiveness in going for it.  He's a brilliant X and O's coach but his understanding of risk leaves a lot to be desired.

So we agree that the fewer possessions each game has mitigates are advantage proportionally and makes us more succeptable to getting beaten by one bad mistake?  And doesn't keeping Mahomes off the field that exact same thing as saying our opponents want us to have the ball less? Seems like semantics there. 

If Oakland wants to win this game, do you think there's any way they can do it minus turnovers if they don't win the TOP? Especially considering we've never lost in the Mahomes era with a TOP advantage without a negative turnover ratio. And Oakland is 1-5 this year when they don't have the TOP advantage. 

 

[Adamixoye 604]

2 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

If Oakland wants to win this game, do you think there's any way they can do it minus turnovers if they don't win the TOP?

Again, this is a very esoteric semantic question.  If they win they will probably also win TOP, sure.  But I'm saying that they cause and effect are reversed.

[Mloe68 1,521]

19 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

That's because it's a symptom, not a cause.  When our offense is moving and the other team's is not, we get the TOP.  When our offense isn't as effective and/or the other team's is, we lose the TOP.  And even as it is, we're still above average when losing the TOP.

It's just like the stats about running back carries.  You don't magically win because you get your RB to 25 carries.  Your RB gets to 25 carries because you're winning.  Same with TOP.  If you win the game, you have a good chance of winning TOP (not perfect, as shown by your stats about us).  But you don't go out and try to win TOP in order to win the game.  Winning TOP happens as a side effect.

Again its all about situation and the style of play of the teams involved. All things being equal the Chiefs can clearly win without the TOP advantage. The Raiders cannot. And I certainly concur with the causation/correlation effect winning a game can have on statistics. And most importantly empty possessions are still empty possessions. So you can't simply try to speed the game up, run clock and expect to win minus points. Red zone efficiency is crucial within this as well. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

8 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

Again, this is a very esoteric semantic question.  If they win they will probably also win TOP, sure.  But I'm saying that they cause and effect are reversed.

Would you be surprised at all if the Chiefs won the game without the TOP advantage? I certainly wouldn't.  And yet wouldn't you be surprised if the Raiders did? I certainly would. Its important to them, not nearly as much so to us. That's the point. 

[Adamixoye 604]

Just now, Mloe68 said:

Would you be surprised at all if the Chiefs won the game without the TOP advantage? I certainly wouldn't.  And yet wouldn't you be surprised if the Raiders did? I certainly would. Its important to them, not nearly as much so to us. That's the point. 

But even if that's true, the Raiders' strategy should not be to chase TOP.  It should be to play their game and do it successfully.  That's my point.

[reesebobby 5,663]

4 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

In the Mahomes era we are 8-1 with a TOP advantage, 11-8 when our opponent has the advantage. 

I suppose it depends on your definition of grinding.  We lost to the Rams last year and lost the TOP battle.  They had 76 yards rushing and 54 points on 448 yards passing.  Is that grinding us out?  The Chargers beat us and also beat us in TOP with 119 yards rushing and 407 yards of total offense. 

The Ravens on the other hand last year rushed 40 times for 194 yards, almost 5 yards a carry  and we held the ball 6 minutes longer than they did while rushing for 94 yards ourselves. 

 

 

[Mloe68 1,521]

45 minutes ago, Chiefsfan1963 said:

Say what you want about anything you want. My issue is every week you constantly worry about the other team and how great of either the running game is, their defense or both. So far this year you have been wrong much more than right. Almost like weather men and sports talk show host. 

You mean I like to discuss my opinion of the strengths and weaknesses of an opponent? Seems like that is exactly what a Chiefs board and pregame thread is all about. Being right is far less important to me than a quality discussion. But could you please elaborate on what I've been wrong about exactly except MAYBE this TOP thing. LOL