KC Denver game

[AFCWEST 1,238]

Chiefs activated OL Kyle Long from the reserve/PUP list.

He'll take Jerick McKinnon's (IR) vacant spot on the active roster. On the final day of his three-week practice window, the Chiefs had no choice but to activate Long or lose him for the rest of the year. It's unclear if he will actually be available to play out of the team's bye.

Chiefs placed RB Jerick McKinnon (hamstring) on injured reserve.

His roster spot will be taken by OL Kyle Long, who was in his final 24 hours to be activated from his practice window or sit the rest of the year. McKinnon is only expected to miss three games

Saunders also to IR.

[jetlord 10,209]

Don't expect much from Long.  The guy hasn't played in forever and he would have needed the whole season to get up to speed.  If there's any way Niang can play, Long is a desperation option only.  

[Adamixoye 604]

2 hours ago, Fmbl2187 said:

Pressure on Mahomes.  As this line continues to develop together, combined with their skills individually, I see these problems declining markedly.  The biggest thing for me is the continued overuse of passing plays on first downs.  2nd or 3rd and short solves all kinds of problems.  With CEH back and our beasts at run blocking, our running game should be utilized far more than it is on early downs. So, that play-calling I believe will clearly make this offense return to dominance. Mahomes also needs to trust his secondary receivers more...well, Hardman not so much.  I'm thinking of Pringle right now. Mahomes seems to focus too much on his primary targets.  With his vision and brain processing, he should do better at throwing more often to his alternatives.

Early down passing rates are literally the opposite of our problem, there is so much evidence that we should be passing on early downs that I don't know where to begin.  You get to 2nd or 3rd and short by passing a lot easier than running.  It seems to me that we give ourselves a lot more problems by running on 2nd and long.

I do think we should be better at running situationally, and we need to show a willingness to run teams out of the 2-high looks if they are begging us to run.  But this is the 2020s, not the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, or even 90s.  3 yards and a cloud of dust is dead, as it should be.

[Adamixoye 604]

1 hour ago, ClarksvilleChief said:

Just seems like everytime I watch a game I see 2 High. The Raiders tried to go away from it and we stomped a mud-hole in that ass.

They absolutely need to run more. Make the safeties play up in the box. Even the arm-chair QB's see this.

I'll reiterate that we did just fine against the 2-high the last three years.  It's not some magic puzzle that can't be solved.  When well-executed, it is the best defense to play against us.  Furthermore, getting pressure with four is the best defense to play against any great QB if you can do it well enough, but that's easier said than done.

But we moved the ball all over the field against the Chargers' vaunted 2-high looks, killed ourselves with 4 turnovers, and still were in the game at the end.  The first month our offense was actually GREAT, people just missed that because we lost games due to defense and the turnovers.  We hit a legitimate skid but our wounds are by far more self-inflicted than teams dictating the game to us.

I agree we could run more, but only up to a point; if the teams are giving it to us and we're dominating, then sure, let's do what we did up in Buffalo last year.  But we have the best QB in the game.  With better scheming and not shooting ourselves in the foot it's far better to turn him loose than trying to pound it.

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

2 hours ago, Adamixoye said:

Early down passing rates are literally the opposite of our problem, there is so much evidence that we should be passing on early downs that I don't know where to begin.  You get to 2nd or 3rd and short by passing a lot easier than running.  It seems to me that we give ourselves a lot more problems by running on 2nd and long.

I do think we should be better at running situationally, and we need to show a willingness to run teams out of the 2-high looks if they are begging us to run.  But this is the 2020s, not the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, or even 90s.  3 yards and a cloud of dust is dead, as it should be.

CEH is averaging over 5 yards and a cloud of dust, isn't he?

[Adamixoye 604]

8 minutes ago, Fmbl2187 said:

CEH is averaging over 5 yards and a cloud of dust, isn't he?

No.  4.8, compared to Patrick's 7.1 per attempt (in a down year).

[jetlord 10,209]

1 hour ago, Fmbl2187 said:

CEH is averaging over 5 yards and a cloud of dust, isn't he?

Almost.  The thing that kills me is second and two followed by two passes and a punt.  With this O-line, the  Chiefs should keep the ball and press on.  No need to throw the bomb when they have an 80% chance of running for the first down.  

[Adamixoye 604]

17 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Almost.  The thing that kills me is second and two followed by two passes and a punt.  With this O-line, the  Chiefs should keep the ball and press on.  No need to throw the bomb when they have an 80% chance of running for the first down.  

That's not always because we're passing.  Been plenty of times when we've gotten stuffed.  It also hurts us that we're never going to let Mahomes sneak ever again...

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

5 hours ago, Adamixoye said:

Early down passing rates are literally the opposite of our problem, there is so much evidence that we should be passing on early downs that I don't know where to begin.  You get to 2nd or 3rd and short by passing a lot easier than running.  It seems to me that we give ourselves a lot more problems by running on 2nd and long.

I do think we should be better at running situationally, and we need to show a willingness to run teams out of the 2-high looks if they are begging us to run.  But this is the 2020s, not the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, or even 90s.  3 yards and a cloud of dust is dead, as it should be.

You make good points, except that my interpretation depends entirely on how the defense is playing it.  Defenses have been playing Mahomes to pass on first down the majority of the time.  The two deep defense is to take away the deep passes and take Hill out of the picture, with LB's dropping back to neutralize Kelce, if possible.  So, how do you stop that defense?  By passing?  Look Adam, I respect your opinions, but you completely are discounting what defenses have been doing.  They have to pay the price for taking away the pass first and foremost.  They don't believe we are going to run the ball on first down.  The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  All I am saying is that 2nd and 5 makes everything work, and our new road graders on the line and CEH back in action gives us an opportunity to make them pay. The time is now.

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

2 hours ago, Adamixoye said:

No.  4.8, compared to Patrick's 7.1 per attempt (in a down year).

Yes.  4.8.  2nd and 5 is a very difficult spot for a defense, because they have no idea what we are going to do on that down.  Mahome's numbers are based on all downs and on scattered long gains a few times per game.  How many 3 and outs have we been getting this year with Mahome's grand 7.1 yard average?  I've lost count.  Miss on first down, and then its 2nd and 10, and the defense can play against the pass 80% of the time. So, they rush the hell out of him, and he throws the next pass too early and often too high. Then, it's 3rd down, and then they blitz.  Your argument just doesn't hold water.

[Adamixoye 604]

KC is getting a 1st down on over 80% of their series, the 4th highest rate in history. Your perception of their struggles is drastically distorted. 

[Adamixoye 604]

Mahomes also has the most EPA lost due to drops in the league. Our primary problem is NOT passing too much or problems with Mahomes, it's execution in the other parts of the offense, particularly the WRs.

[xen 1,010,220]

8 hours ago, Adamixoye said:

Mahomes also has the most EPA lost due to drops in the league. Our primary problem is NOT passing too much or problems with Mahomes, it's execution in the other parts of the offense, particularly the WRs.

This essentially correct

[jetlord 10,209]

10 hours ago, Adamixoye said:

That's not always because we're passing.  Been plenty of times when we've gotten stuffed.  It also hurts us that we're never going to let Mahomes sneak ever again...

I would agree about the stuffs last year.  This year, the Chiefs have been more successful on short yardage runs.  No team can be moving the ball if they're predictable, but the odds on third/fourth and short seem pretty high this year when the Chiefs run behind this line.  Wonder what the success rate is on runs of less than two yds. to go. 

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

I like having a mostly passing team. We have had amazing success until the first several games of this year and won our first league championship in a half century by  just winning shootouts. But remember, we had to come from way behind for three games in a row to do that.

These stats regarding drops are the price that we pay for not having a bunch of Hills and Kelces all over the field when we are throwing the ball all over the field and for having a QB slump in accuracy for several games. We can't expect to be free of injury to our playmakers throughout a season or of having accuracy slumps or several weeks with the dropsies, so we have to be able to win by running and defense when needed. We need to use all of our assets in a complementary way. 

Football games are not won by stats. and defenses cannot just sit on the likelihood of defending the pass. There has to be more balance.  We have the personnel now to improve our balance and throw more doubt into the minds of opposing defenses. That doubt will allow receivers to have more space to catch a ball. We can't throw the ball through tiny windows all the time without increasing interceptions and drops. We don't have to change to 50-50.  Even 55-45 would change everything, especially on early downs.  No spectacular stats will change my mind.  Spectacular  won/loss records would.

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

I know that last post was too long, but having stats and metrics thrown around to try to neutralize the reality of the necessity of complementary football is an absurdity.

[Adamixoye 604]

12 minutes ago, Fmbl2187 said:

I like having a mostly passing team. We have had amazing success until the first several games of this year and won our first league championship in a half century by  just winning shootouts. But remember, we had to come from way behind for three games in a row to do that.

These stats regarding drops are the price that we pay for not having a bunch of Hills and Kelces all over the field when we are throwing the ball all over the field and for having a QB slump in accuracy for several games. We can't expect to be free of injury to our playmakers throughout a season or of having accuracy slumps or several weeks with the dropsies, so we have to be able to win by running and defense when needed. We need to use all of our assets in a complementary way. 

Football games are not won by stats. and defenses cannot just sit on the likelihood of defending the pass. There has to be more balance.  We have the personnel now to improve our balance and throw more doubt into the minds of opposing defenses. That doubt will allow receivers to have more space to catch a ball. We can't throw the ball through tiny windows all the time without increasing interceptions and drops. We don't have to change to 50-50.  Even 55-45 would change everything, especially on early downs.  No spectacular stats will change my mind.  Spectacular  won/loss records would.

Well if you're in the "stats can't tell me anything crowd" then I don't know what to tell you.

And without turnovers by CEH there's a fantastic chance that we're 8-3 or 9-2.  It would be insane for us to be any less than 60-40 pass-run in neutral game script situations.

[Adamixoye 604]

1 minute ago, Fmbl2187 said:

I know that last post was too long, but having stats and metrics thrown around to try to neutralize the reality of the necessity of complementary football is an absurdity.

"Stats and metrics" are just information.  Yes there is always context but when you say something like "I can't tell you how many 3 and outs we've had" but this team is converting 1st downs at a historic pace then it is indeed the "eye test" which is hard to take seriously.

[Adamixoye 604]

Also it's Hill and Kelce that are contributing the most problems with drops.

 

[reesebobby 5,663]

Just now, Adamixoye said:

Also it's Hill and Kelce that are contributing the most problems with drops.

 

That's true.  And it's partly true because they are targeted a lot and have more opportunities for drops.  But those two have been unusually dropsy.  

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

4 minutes ago, reesebobby said:

That's true.  And it's partly true because they are targeted a lot and have more opportunities for drops.  But those two have been unusually dropsy.  

I've been worried about him. Too much pressure on him.

[Adamixoye 604]

3 minutes ago, reesebobby said:

That's true.  And it's partly true because they are targeted a lot and have more opportunities for drops.  But those two have been unusually dropsy.  

True, but the point remains that it's not just because we're passing all over the place and guys 3 through 6 are screwing us.  Also, another factor when measured by EPA per play is the context (hey, wow, some stats can implicitly measure things that have context, what do you know)...it's at least three drops that turned into INTs.  One cost us a likely TD (Hill against WFT), one was a pick-6 the other way (Hill against BUF), another we were moving the ball nicely (Kelce against DAL).

[kkuenn 3,599]

2 hours ago, Adamixoye said:

Well if you're in the "stats can't tell me anything crowd" then I don't know what to tell you.

And without turnovers by CEH there's a fantastic chance that we're 8-3 or 9-2.  It would be insane for us to be any less than 60-40 pass-run in neutral game script situations.

Ceh has had 2 turnovers. First 2 in fact in his pro game. One was costly yes but to think the other 19 or whatever turnovers were not costly is laughable. I would hold judgement on him until we see he can't produce when given an actual chance. So far his stats are good but very under utilized.

[Adamixoye 604]

38 minutes ago, kkuenn said:

Ceh has had 2 turnovers. First 2 in fact in his pro game. One was costly yes but to think the other 19 or whatever turnovers were not costly is laughable. I would hold judgement on him until we see he can't produce when given an actual chance. So far his stats are good but very under utilized.

That wasn't my point at all, which is why I didn't say those words.

My point was that we took the ball out of Patrick's hands in the Ravens game and it almost definitely cost us that game (I think we should have passed anyway, because I would have liked Butker to be closer).

Then he was one of the problems in the Chargers game.  Take away any of those first three turnovers (Kemp deflection for INT, Hill? fumble, CEH fumble) and who knows what happens.  Patrick also threw a second bad INT, but honestly I blame those hero-ball 3rd down INTs on our defense putting so much pressure on the offense to score every time.  Thankfully that's cleared up a bit.

This whole argument is about whether we should be passing or running more, there's a direct connection that if we had passed more in the right situations we would have a better record --- which is what Fmbl2187 said was what mattered --- while I don't think you can make the same claim in the other direction.  The games where the passing was off (relatively speaking) we either won (NYG) or were getting kicked all over the field in all phases anyway (BUF and TEN).  More running would not have helped.

[AFCWEST 1,238]

2 hours ago, Adamixoye said:

Well if you're in the "stats can't tell me anything crowd" then I don't know what to tell you.

And without turnovers by CEH there's a fantastic chance that we're 8-3 or 9-2.  It would be insane for us to be any less than 60-40 pass-run in neutral game script situations.

I think every fan base would say but for this or that we could have more wins. Kc could also have a couple more loses but for. Chiefs have an amazing win percentage over the past few years. Sometimes the ball bounces the other way. No question that this offense turning it over is the issue keeping it from dominating.