Calichief 3,016 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 West Kelce DAT all questionable... Like I said, we shall see.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANATIC 852 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 West Kelce DAT all questionable... Like I said, we shall see.. As you know:Every team, including Bills , have injury issues....... especially this time of year. Depth now becomes critical. I think KC has good depth in most areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 As you know:Every team, including Bills , have injury issues....... especially this time of year. Depth now becomes critical. I think KC has good depth in most areas. On the offense, I don't think we are deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANATIC 852 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 On the offense, I don't think we are deep. Davis and Ware are capable. Kelce would be missed but Buffalo has key guys out too. They pretty much shut Gronk down so tight end may not be anything more than a decoy? So its game on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Davis and Ware are capable. Kelce would be missed but Buffalo has key guys out too. They pretty much shut Gronk down so tight end may not be anything more than a decoy? The Bills schemed to take Gronkowski out of the offensive game plan, which allowed for Danny Amendola to have a big day before he got hurt. It would take a little less in the way of resources to marginalize Kelce, while single coverage would be sufficient for Harris or Parker. The middle statement is key: Buffalo has key guys that won't play. If both Charcandrick West and Travis Kelce are unable to play, I think the Chiefs could still win a defensive battle, but the likely point total for the game might sink below 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest okiechief1 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 If somebody said before the season the JC would go down and the Chiefs went on a 4 game winning streak without him, with one of the wins coming in Denver most wouldn't believe it, no matter whom we played,. With the way the season started most ( including me) thought the season was done at 1 -5 especially with no JC, but yet here we are, less than 48 hours away of getting ready to watch a game that has playoff implications, after that start and after JC going down. This game is gonna be a game won or lost in the trenches, how well we stop the run and how well our line handles whomever they throw out there on their Dline. Chances are, if we can't handle their dline, Kelce and west woulnd't have had a chance to make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I never wanted to Jamaal Charles to go down and when we did well without him in the playoffs, I thought it was all because the other team did not prepare for our game as if Charles wasn't there. They didn't adjust to our adjustment. But while I would always like to have Charles there, I do think some aspects of the game is better without him because Reid feels he has to use him in his own way and our team gets too one-dimensional. I don't mean we run too much, but we would run or pass to him too much. Of course, I would rather have him and use him in our system optimally. But if you're not going to use him in the right way, and we get too one-dimensional, maybe we can take some positives out of his absence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 If our oline can handle the blitz, we want them to blitz because then it gets fewer defenders in the secondary to defend our passes. If our line can't block, that's worse for Smith, who will hold onto the ball too long, take too long to decide, take a sack, think there's pressure when there's not pressure as urgent, or check down too early. Some of that he'll do anyway, but if the line is blocking, it won't be enough to cost us and it will help us prevent turning the ball over and help extend drives and use the clock. I bring this up because I saw a poster on the Bills board saying this Smith was one of the best statistically against the blitz over the past five years. That's obviously because the rest of the field opens up when you commit people to blitz. Of course, the rest of the field opening up won't help if the line can't block or the quarterback doesn't think the line can block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Bailey ford and DAT confirmed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefensiveMan 758 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Bailey ford and DAT confirmed out. Saving Bailey for the stretch? I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 BJ Kissel @ChiefsReporter 7h7 hours ago These #Bills have been ruled out for Sunday's game vs. #Chiefs: DT - Kyle Williams OL - John Miller DE - Mario Williams WR - Marcus Easley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gochiefsgo 380 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 It is going to be a playoff like atmosphere at Arrowhead. Wish I was going instead of working that morning. I think it will be a low scoring defensive battle and the Chiefs will win if they can stop the Bills running game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qnet 1,150 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I watched the bill and pats game. They were really pressuring Brady, but he was getting the ball out of his hands very fast. Their online looks better than ours. Other than Watkins they don't have that much better recievers than the chiefs. They're not a bad team. I still think the Chiefs can win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I keep reading our tight ends get yards after the catch in articles as if that's a bad thing or that the fact that we structure our offense to get a lot of yards after the catch as being a bad thing. I don't understand that. I understand saying that lack of a deep ball is a bad thing, but why not leave it at that? Why not just say lack of the deep ball is a problem? Why act like calling plays to throw to a talented tight end that could get a lot of yards after the catch, extend drives, get us in scoring position, etc. is a bad thing? It's like saying, sure he has a lot of money, but he made that in the computer business. So what? That was the goal and that worked. And then the same thing happens with protecting the ball. I know that by not taking deep shots, you can artifficially lower your turnovers, but there is a benefit to that. I joke, but I've always said that I don't watch football for entertainment, I watch for my team to win. It frustrates me when we don't win and when we do then I got my purpose of watching the game. I don't need to be mesmerized or excited about how a win happens. Having said all that, I know when we do fall short there are certain things that would be more exciting that don't happen that would've won the game. I get upset about that, but not about not being entertained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I also hear how our game is simple and defenses only have to defend the short game, but even with all that we have pretty good success. I know the thought is that when we face a team in the playoffs that are pretty good we would lose, but in the playoffs we opened up. Yeah, I know it was only one game and it was the Colts offense. And we lost. We need to expand our offense deeper while holding on what works and understand when what we do works and when it doesn't. Screens work but they also don't. Behind a line of scrimmage works, but also doesn't. It's not the plays, it's the predictability. We can still have our plays, we just need to mix it up more. You can stretch a defense horizontally, but with the line being better we should and probably will push it a little bit more vertical. Not going crazy, just a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Verbal diarrhea, I know. But I didn't write that all at one time. I just pasted it from another board over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I understand saying that lack of a deep ball is a bad thing, but why not leave it at that? Why not just say lack of the deep ball is a problem? Why act like calling plays to throw to a talented tight end that could get a lot of yards after the catch, extend drives, get us in scoring decision, etc. is a bad thing? Because it's easier to write negatively biased articles about Alex Smith if you ignore the fact that the West Coast Offense by design is intended to produce yards after the catch. If that gets acknowledged, then suddenly Smith is effectively running a scheme that suits him well just as it did many of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game, and the decision was made a long time ago by so many sports writers that Alex Smith is incapable of being a good quarterback because he is Alex Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilkie 1,518 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Because it's easier to write negatively biased articles about Alex Smith if you ignore the fact that the West Coast Offense by design is intended to produce yards after the catch. If that gets acknowledged, then suddenly Smith is effectively running a scheme that suits him well just as it did many of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game, and the decision was made a long time ago by so many sports writers that Alex Smith is incapable of being a good quarterback because he is Alex Smith.Yes absolutely. Fans with short memories forgot when Paul Hackett brought the west coast offense to KC the first time. Its all about yards after the catch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANATIC 852 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Yes absolutely. Fans with short memories forgot when Paul Hackett brought the west coast offense to KC the first time. Its all about yards after the catch Thats because it and he are a nightmare memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 I don't agree with the whole thing but thought this was a good article if you read the whole thing (not too long): http://bills.buffalonews.com/2015/11/28/savvy-smith-manages-well-in-chiefs-offensive-system/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.