Titans in the first round

[Adamixoye 604]

2 minutes ago, Chiefsfan1963 said:

Not really, Mahomes was out roughly 2 weeks and according to the reports he was on the practice field each week. Yet, that first game back he was off.

I disagree that he was off.  His first pass was bad and then honestly he played very well after that IMO.  We scored 32 points and should have scored a lot more, our problems in that game came from other sources, like playcalling.

Plus you can't really use coming off of an injury as a comparison for choosing to rest.

[Calichief 3,016]

31 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

I disagree that he was off.  His first pass was bad and then honestly he played very well after that IMO.  We scored 32 points and should have scored a lot more, our problems in that game came from other sources, like playcalling.

Plus you can't really use coming off of an injury as a comparison for choosing to rest.

Didn’t he go for 400 plus coming back?

[Adamixoye 604]

5 minutes ago, Calichief said:

Didn’t he go for 400 plus coming back?

36/50 for 446 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT

Had a fourth TD called back.  The way I remember it there were SEVERAL throwaways due to pressure/poor play design, yet he still hit 72% overall.

[Adamixoye 604]

He had one other overthrow when he had someone (Hill?) open down the middle.  It was basically on the basis of that almost-INT on the first pass and that later miss that people said he didn't look like himself, but I honestly thought it was one of his most explosive games of the whole year, right up there with pre-injury Jacksonville and that 2nd quarter in Oakland.

[Mloe68 1,521]

1 hour ago, Adamixoye said:

I disagree that he was off.  His first pass was bad and then honestly he played very well after that IMO.  We scored 32 points and should have scored a lot more, our problems in that game came from other sources, like playcalling.

Plus you can't really use coming off of an injury as a comparison for choosing to rest.

I was at the game and he was a little rusty with some of the intermediate throws. But hey, he threw for 445 yards and 3 TDs. I didn't see play calling as an issue. It was penalties, a bad turnover and two special teams miscues that cost us. Perfect storm of usual plays. The kind of stuff that happens routinely against the Titans unfortunately. 

[Adamixoye 604]

22 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

I was at the game and he was a little rusty with some of the intermediate throws. But hey, he threw for 445 yards and 3 TDs. I didn't see play calling as an issue. It was penalties, a bad turnover and two special teams miscues that cost us. Perfect storm of usual plays. The kind of stuff that happens routinely against the Titans unfortunately. 

The offense unable to close out those drives at the end I thought was largely playcalling.

Also, if you extend "playcalling" to game management decisions, there were 4th downs where we should have gone for it instead of kicking the FG, this is something Seth Keysor on Twitter has (rightly) been hammering.

[Mloe68 1,521]

21 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

The offense unable to close out those drives at the end I thought was largely playcalling.

Also, if you extend "playcalling" to game management decisions, there were 4th downs where we should have gone for it instead of kicking the FG, this is something Seth Keysor on Twitter has (rightly) been hammering.

We had several situations earlier in the game we kicked FGs at 3rd and short. And a case can be made there. But we also have really had issues in the red zone and that has to be considered before just making the decision your going to not take 3 points when they are available at a very high percentage.

 Late in the game we had two fourth and 8's we decided to kick FGs. One put us up by 5. The other was botched and would have put us up by 8. Play call there let Mahomes roll out with Kelce as primary but the MVP had options. We didn't get it blocked. And then screwed up the kick. People complain about play calling when it doesn't work. But unless you are down by 10 and throwing screen passes 3rd and 18, it's a very subjective thing where fans aren't privy too and largely don't understand all that's involved. 

[Chiefsfan1963 1,101]

1 hour ago, Calichief said:

Didn’t he go for 400 plus coming back?

He was 36-50 and missed some wide open receivers, i.e. cold and not in sync. When you throw 50 times your bound to rack up numbers. How many times has Mahomes missed that many times? Not bad when you compare him to other QBs, but on his standards it was not good. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

5 minutes ago, Chiefsfan1963 said:

He was 36-50 and missed some wide open receivers, i.e. cold and not in sync. When you throw 50 times your bound to rack up numbers. How many times has Mahomes missed that many times? Not bad when you compare him to other QBs, but on his standards it was not good. 

He completed 72 percent of his passes and averages 66 percent on the season. So yes, it was good by his standards. 

[Adamixoye 604]

44 minutes ago, Chiefsfan1963 said:

He was 36-50 and missed some wide open receivers, i.e. cold and not in sync. When you throw 50 times your bound to rack up numbers. How many times has Mahomes missed that many times? Not bad when you compare him to other QBs, but on his standards it was not good. 

As Mloe already said, it was 72%, above his season and career averages. It was also 8.9 yards per attempt, also above his season average. So it wasn't just volume. 

But by your logic volume does mean there will be a few missed throws. I'm not denying he missed a couple. But I wouldn't at all say "not good" even by elevated standards. 

[moons314 2,463]

1 hour ago, Mloe68 said:

He completed 72 percent of his passes and averages 66 percent on the season. So yes, it was good by his standards. 

Isn't it odd that Mahomes is so good that if he's anything short of perfect, something is wrong?  The next QB that doesn't miss a throw here and there regardless of talent will be the first. 

[Adamixoye 604]

1 hour ago, Mloe68 said:

We had several situations earlier in the game we kicked FGs at 3rd and short. And a case can be made there. But we also have really had issues in the red zone and that has to be considered before just making the decision your going to not take 3 points when they are available at a very high percentage.

Well, yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about, not the other, later FGs.  We kicked 3 FGs on 4th & 3 or shorter.  The advanced stats say you should go for those, and any alleged red zone issues don't really change the calculus there.  The flip side to what you're saying is how the possibility of a missed FG gives better field position to the other team, which is what happened on the later botched FG (which wasn't one of the 4th and shorts, but still).

1 hour ago, Mloe68 said:

Late in the game we had two fourth and 8's we decided to kick FGs. One put us up by 5. The other was botched and would have put us up by 8. Play call there let Mahomes roll out with Kelce as primary but the MVP had options. We didn't get it blocked. And then screwed up the kick. People complain about play calling when it doesn't work. But unless you are down by 10 and throwing screen passes 3rd and 18, it's a very subjective thing where fans aren't privy too and largely don't understand all that's involved. 

I understand your point about not having all the information and fans looking at results/execution rather than process, but it doesn't mean play calls are always beyond criticism.  My recollection is that the primary option was actually Bell.  The play was snuffed out and Patrick didn't seem to have other options.  I see that as poor play calling/design.

2 hours ago, Mloe68 said:

I was at the game and he was a little rusty with some of the intermediate throws. But hey, he threw for 445 yards and 3 TDs. I didn't see play calling as an issue. It was penalties, a bad turnover and two special teams miscues that cost us. Perfect storm of usual plays. The kind of stuff that happens routinely against the Titans unfortunately. 

Like Moon said, we can't hold Mahomes to some insane standard where he's going to hit every throw.  I only remember the one missed deep ball, but no QB is going to hit on 100% of those anyway.  I don't remember the other intermediate misses, I'm not saying they didn't happen.  But when comp % and YPA are normal or above average I don't think you can claim that he was significantly "rusty" or "off."  This whole conversation started off debating if Mahomes was "rusty" in this game due to not having played in the prior weeks.  I would say no, but to whatever extent he may have underperformed slightly, I would argue it was testing out the injuries, which is a different issue than rest/rust.  In this game we looked as explosive on offense as we had all year, at least since the first month of the season, except for in a few critical moments.  The one turnover and some other mistakes played into as well, sure.

[sith13 1,746]

18 hours ago, Mloe68 said:

I was at the game and he was a little rusty with some of the intermediate throws. But hey, he threw for 445 yards and 3 TDs. I didn't see play calling as an issue. It was penalties, a bad turnover and two special teams miscues that cost us. Perfect storm of usual plays. The kind of stuff that happens routinely against the Titans unfortunately. 

You just described any Chiefs playoff game ever.

[Mloe68 1,521]

9 hours ago, sith13 said:

You just described any Chiefs playoff game ever.

Difference is with this QB we beat the red hot Colts like a drum anyway. Gotta be good enough not to get bit by the unfortunate when it strikes. We weren’t there yet against World Champs. Something tells me once we break through and win Lombardi it’ll seem like breaks for our way more. This head coach keeps knocking down decades worth of bad luck one playoff win at a time. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

On 12/24/2019 at 2:17 PM, Adamixoye said:

Well, yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about, not the other, later FGs.  We kicked 3 FGs on 4th & 3 or shorter.  The advanced stats say you should go for those, and any alleged red zone issues don't really change the calculus there.  The flip side to what you're saying is how the possibility of a missed FG gives better field position to the other team, which is what happened on the later botched FG (which wasn't one of the 4th and shorts, but still).

This is where clinging to closely to analytics can get you in trouble. Every situation is different and has to be accounted for that way. How can you possibly suggest that the matchup at hand shouldn't play into decision making?   Your suggesting they should have gone for it on 4th and 2 because of the success rate of the average offense versus the average defense.  And suggesting that a below average offensive line and a gimpy QB playing a high level defensive line shouldn't matter?  It doesn't matter that a the Pro Bowl defensive tackle is eating our interior linemans lunch? Cmon.  There's a lot of value in having analytics, but its just a part of the equation that needs to be considered.  And the success rate of your kicker and the conditions he's kicking in absolutely need to be a part of that variable thought process.  

I understand your point about not having all the information and fans looking at results/execution rather than process, but it doesn't mean play calls are always beyond criticism.  My recollection is that the primary option was actually Bell.  The play was snuffed out and Patrick didn't seem to have other options.  I see that as poor play calling/design.

Being a fan gives us the option to scrutinize anything and everything. It's part of the fun. But reality is you are being scutinizing without the facts. You are guessing. Andy Reid is one of the best in the business at play design. Certainly doesn't mean he doesn't make mistakes. Problem is fans rarely really know what they are criticizing. 

Like Moon said, we can't hold Mahomes to some insane standard where he's going to hit every throw.  I only remember the one missed deep ball, but no QB is going to hit on 100% of those anyway.  I don't remember the other intermediate misses, I'm not saying they didn't happen. 

I was there and Mahomes missed WRs he doesn't normally miss. It was obvious. He also clearly had mobility issues which again has to factor into decisions. He still had a phenomenol game. 

 

 

[Adamixoye 604]

19 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

This is where clinging to closely to analytics can get you in trouble. Every situation is different and has to be accounted for that way. How can you possibly suggest that the matchup at hand shouldn't play into decision making?   Your suggesting they should have gone for it on 4th and 2 because of the success rate of the average offense versus the average defense.  And suggesting that a below average offensive line and a gimpy QB playing a high level defensive line shouldn't matter?  It doesn't matter that a the Pro Bowl defensive tackle is eating our interior linemans lunch? Cmon.  There's a lot of value in having analytics, but its just a part of the equation that needs to be considered.  And the success rate of your kicker and the conditions he's kicking in absolutely need to be a part of that variable thought process.  

We are unlikely to have a productive conversation that solves a larger debate about analytics, so I am going to try to make this short.  I am saying that good analytics does take into account team-specific factors, but that doesn't necessarily swing whether or not to go for it on those 4th and shorts.  Most people still underestimate how much upside there is to going for it on those plays.  Most people also can't wrap their minds around the fact that these decisions are like card counting:  you can guarantee any particular outcome, but you're setting yourself up for better success over the long haul.  But if you go against the analytics saying, "I just don't have a good gut feeling about this one" that's actually the worst of both worlds, not the best.

Also, no I am not saying that scouting / film evaluation / traditional coaching / etc. do not matter.  But if you look across all of sports, it's the teams that embrace analytics the most that are succeeding---on the whole, on average, not necessarily every single case.  But there's not really a good case of a team embracing analytics "too much" and underperforming relative to their potential.

19 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

Being a fan gives us the option to scrutinize anything and everything. It's part of the fun. But reality is you are being scutinizing without the facts. You are guessing. Andy Reid is one of the best in the business at play design. Certainly doesn't mean he doesn't make mistakes. Problem is fans rarely really know what they are criticizing. 

I'm not guessing about anything, I'm just analyzing the play as best I can based what I saw.  I acknowledge I don't know everything about the game plan and Reid's thinking.  I also hate rollouts to the short side of the field as a general rule, and especially in that situation.  As he was rolling out I didn't like the play, before I knew the result.  I'm not saying my opinion is the be-all and end-all but my opinion does coincide with the ultimate unfortunate result for us.

19 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

I was there and Mahomes missed WRs he doesn't normally miss. It was obvious. He also clearly had mobility issues which again has to factor into decisions. He still had a phenomenol game. 

I'm glad you got to go to the game but you being there in person doesn't make your evaluation any more or less valid than mine.  Again, I don't know how we can say "phenomenal" and "rusty" / "below his standards" about the same game.  Mahomes does miss guys just about every game.  His career completion percentage is very good but below the truly elite (for reference it's lower than 10 out of the last 11 seasons by Drew Brees), and that's partly because he takes chances and misses guys sometimes.

 

 

 

[Mloe68 1,521]

1 hour ago, Adamixoye said:

We are unlikely to have a productive conversation that solves a larger debate about analytics, so I am going to try to make this short.  I am saying that good analytics does take into account team-specific factors, but that doesn't necessarily swing whether or not to go for it on those 4th and shorts. 

You can't have good data when you aren't including whats happening right here right now and how that outweighs anything that happened in the past. Building that into the algorighm shouldn't be that tough. But even then it doesn't account for the singular matchups that can destroy a play. 

Most people still underestimate how much upside there is to going for it on those plays. 

There's a chart out there which describes most scenarios and the likely outcome of how kicking FGs or going for it impacts the overall outcome. Every coach should have this. And I don't underestimate its value at all. But its flawed like anything else. 

Most people also can't wrap their minds around the fact that these decisions are like card counting:  you can guarantee any particular outcome, but you're setting yourself up for better success over the long haul.  But if you go against the analytics saying, "I just don't have a good gut feeling about this one" that's actually the worst of both worlds, not the best.

This isn't counting cards. Variables here are far greater and change every single week and sometimes from play to play. But I understand the concept as a poker player. You have to know the odds to maximize your chances to win. Coaches should know historically whats likely to happen. But the matchups in any one game and even the individual matchups within that are constantly changing. In high level poker you know the second you make a play whether it was statistically the right move even if you end up losing. There are variables which make this much more difficult in football. This isn't cards. 

.I'm not guessing about anything, I'm just analyzing the play as best I can based what I saw.  I acknowledge I don't know everything about the game plan and Reid's thinking.  I also hate rollouts to the short side of the field as a general rule, and especially in that situation.  As he was rolling out I didn't like the play, before I knew the result.  I'm not saying my opinion is the be-all and end-all but my opinion does coincide with the ultimate unfortunate result for us.

How are you not guessing?  You don't know what the play call was and what anyones responsibilities were supposed to be. I personally love those Mahomes roll out plays. Get our best player out in space where he excels. Problem is in that game he didnt' have the same Mahomes mobility. From that standpoint I agree with you. Again adjust to whats happening now because I'm willing to bet this type of play has a huge success rate with this QB normally.  Bread and butter. All this said, I'm largely on your side in that none of my sports teams seem to embrace enough of the analytics. Information is powerful. The more the better.  

 

I'm glad you got to go to the game but you being there in person doesn't make your evaluation any more or less valid than mine.  Again, I don't know how we can say "phenomenal" and "rusty" / "below his standards" about the same game.  Mahomes does miss guys just about every game.  His career completion percentage is very good but below the truly elite (for reference it's lower than 10 out of the last 11 seasons by Drew Brees), and that's partly because he takes chances and misses guys sometimes.

That's fine and I agree. I was 5 rows from the field and saw him overthrow and underthrow passes right in front of me especially in the first half that I've rarely seen him miss before. That's the crux of why myself and most people around me were commenting he looked a bit off. This is irrelevant to me though as I was one of the first to argue the overall numbers don't lie. He was really good. Under normal conditions he would have been even better from my perspective. But that's how special the kid is. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Adamixoye 604]

14 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

You can't have good data when you aren't including whats happening right here right now and how that outweighs anything that happened in the past. Building that into the algorighm shouldn't be that tough. But even then it doesn't account for the singular matchups that can destroy a play. 

There's a chart out there which describes most scenarios and the likely outcome of how kicking FGs or going for it impacts the overall outcome. Every coach should have this. And I don't underestimate its value at all. But its flawed like anything else. 

This isn't counting cards. Variables here are far greater and change every single week and sometimes from play to play. But I understand the concept as a poker player. You have to know the odds to maximize your chances to win. Coaches should know historically whats likely to happen. But the matchups in any one game and even the individual matchups within that are constantly changing. In high level poker you know the second you make a play whether it was statistically the right move even if you end up losing. There are variables which make this much more difficult in football. This isn't cards. 

We're talking past each other on a lot of this so I'm only going to make this one point one more time...it's for all of these reasons that teams should lean on analytics more rather than just using them as an occasional guide.  The math in favor of going for those 4th and shorts is pretty overwhelming, and "we struggle a little in the red zone," to whatever extent that is or isn't true, was not enough to change that math in the Titans game.  And once again, any analytics team worth their salt is not just looking at league-wide historical data in making those decisions but is also looking at team-specific data.  At the end of the day, we should have been more aggressive, period.  Let's say Moore and Henne had been injured and we were down to Shurmur behind Mahomes and then Mahomes gets injured on the play before, that's when you *might* override the overwhelming analytical preference.  Not "well Pat has missed a throw or two and might only be at 85%" or "McCoy has been stuffed a few times, so it's probably not worth it to try for the TD."

[Mloe68 1,521]

6 hours ago, Adamixoye said:

The math in favor of going for those 4th and shorts is pretty overwhelming, and "we struggle a little in the red zone," to whatever extent that is or isn't true, was not enough to change that math in the Titans game.  

 First off we don’t struggle a little bit in the red zone. We rank 23rd in the NFL there.  It’s a weakness.  Our speed as an offense is mitigated as the field is squeezed and it plays into our biggest weakness which is an interior running game. Meanwhile we have an elite kicker.  Playing against a stout run defense makes it worse. We may convert a 4th down but the odds are still only 53-47 we score a TD.  

I read all of Keysors stuff too and enjoy it. But he’s also on board with basically abandoning the running game all together based on the same analytics.  .Coaches have to have a feel for the situation and make judgments based on their massive wealth of knowledge. That should definitely contextually include analytics; which tell him what already happened. Useful information and should be treated as such… but that’s where it ends.  - a good line from the article below   

https://www.trendingbuffalo.com/sports/buffalo-bills/5-reasons-football-analytics-arent-as-great-as-you-think-they-are/

[Adamixoye 604]

8 hours ago, Mloe68 said:

 First off we don’t struggle a little bit in the red zone. We rank 23rd in the NFL there.  It’s a weakness.  Our speed as an offense is mitigated as the field is squeezed and it plays into our biggest weakness which is an interior running game. Meanwhile we have an elite kicker.  Playing against a stout run defense makes it worse. We may convert a 4th down but the odds are still only 53-47 we score a TD.  

I read all of Keysors stuff too and enjoy it. But he’s also on board with basically abandoning the running game all together based on the same analytics.  .Coaches have to have a feel for the situation and make judgments based on their massive wealth of knowledge. That should definitely contextually include analytics; which tell him what already happened. Useful information and should be treated as such… but that’s where it ends.  - a good line from the article below   

https://www.trendingbuffalo.com/sports/buffalo-bills/5-reasons-football-analytics-arent-as-great-as-you-think-they-are/

Well Keysor is not the only analytically-minded guy I read/listen to, just one of the most Chiefs-oriented ones and one of the ones who was banging the drum about not being aggressive enough against the Titans (during the game when we had a decent lead, I might add - it was either him or ArrowheadAnalytics or both, I can't remember for sure).

I don't think "abandoning the running game altogether" is a completely nuanced and fair representation of what Keysor actually said (I don't subscribe so I didn't read any full articles he had), but in any case it's begging the question to just assume that's so wrong that we should be skeptical of what he says.

No offense but I couldn't disagree more with your link, in fact I found it rather laughable.  #3 is a classic jock objection to analytics, just throwing around "nerd" as an epithet.  "We all have Excel" - LOL, so do all my students and 90% of them couldn't remotely handle the math of anything more than the most basic analytics.  In #4 he calls it pseudo-science without backing that claim up, and his only concrete objection (that average-per-play metrics are irrelevant if you don't know what the team is going for) is demonstrably ignorant of how most analytics work, there are definitely many metrics that factor this in and anyone good at analytics will be using the right one for the situation.  Also saying something is "pseudo-science" but then saying the information is "helpful" is not a logically coherent stance to take.  I could go on.

This tweet more or less addresses the philosophical disagreement that we're having.

 

[azchief21 5,278]

On 12/24/2019 at 9:10 AM, azchief21 said:

Upset Alert: Fitzpatrick throws for 500 yards 6 TDs and 5 INTS to defeat NE and insuring that the Chiefs get #2 seed and Fitzpatrick gets a contract with his 25th NFL team next season. He will sit behind a rookie then play the final 5 games.

I may have been off the the stats a little bit but we are #2 seed!!

[jetlord 10,209]

34 minutes ago, azchief21 said:

I may have been off the the stats a little bit but we are #2 seed!!

You da man!  Not many could really imagine the Fish would go into NE and beat the Pats in the winter.  BTW:  The AZ area KC Chiefs fans playoff game party previously scheduled for this coming weekend is canceled.  ☺️

[azchief21 5,278]

4 minutes ago, jetlord said:

You da man!  Not many could really imagine the Fish would go into NE and beat the Pats in the winter.  BTW:  The AZ area KC Chiefs fans playoff game party previously scheduled for this coming weekend is canceled.  ☺️

That's one game party we're glad to have canceled. You here yet?

[jetlord 10,209]

Just now, azchief21 said:

That's one game party we're glad to have canceled. You here yet?

Got here Friday. 

[azchief21 5,278]

2 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Got here Friday. 

Cold by our standards. You out at Gold Canyon?