PDA

View Full Version : Characterize the Chiefs' offense, please.


Rain Man
01-04-2005, 12:32 PM
Poll coming. Stay tuned. Don't touch that dial. Back after this message from our sponsors.

Rain Man
01-04-2005, 01:22 PM
Or not. I don't care.

cdcox
01-04-2005, 03:02 PM
The Chiefs had 593 passing plays compared to only compared to 496 rushing plays. Consider that most of Trent Green's 25 rushes were actually passing plays and the gap widens further. Passing accounted for about 2/3 rds of our yardage.

Anyone who doesn't think the offense is tilted slightly toward the pass on this team does not have a firm grip on reality. That last sentence was thrown in there to get some disussion going on Rainman's poor forgotten thread.

Rain Man
01-04-2005, 03:06 PM
I'm finding this poll interesting because my anecdotal conclusion is that the Chiefs have been a pass-first offense the past couple of years. We can move the ball via passing more consistently than by running, and when things are going poorly it seems like we revert to the passing game instead of the running game. It's an odd thing to say when you've got a runner like Priesarry Holmeson, but I think we're a passing team that happens to have a great runner.

JimNasium
01-04-2005, 03:12 PM
I'm finding this poll interesting because my anecdotal conclusion is that the Chiefs have been a pass-first offense the past couple of years. We can move the ball via passing more consistently than by running, and when things are going poorly it seems like we revert to the passing game instead of the running game. It's an odd thing to say when you've got a runner like Priesarry Holmeson, but I think we're a passing team that happens to have a great runner.
Iíve now entered a state of confusion that is best compared to the driving skills of a narcoleptic chimpanzee.

Deberg_1990
01-04-2005, 03:13 PM
I'm finding this poll interesting because my anecdotal conclusion is that the Chiefs have been a pass-first offense the past couple of years. We can move the ball via passing more consistently than by running, and when things are going poorly it seems like we revert to the passing game instead of the running game. It's an odd thing to say when you've got a runner like Priesarry Holmeson, but I think we're a passing team that happens to have a great runner.


Vermiel and Saunders, ever since they have been here, want so badly for this to be a passing team first. Remember, that they practically ignored Priest his 1st 2 games here in KC and then still would not give him his due after he put up huge yards in 2001. This is where DV and Saunders get into alot of trouble with this O. They think its something that its NOT and try and fit a square peg into a round hole. IMO the O-line are better run blockers than pass blockers. Green is a good QB, but isnt a Montana/Elway/Favre who can win a game all by himself and our WR's are serviceable. The only 'All-World" players we have are our O-line and Running backs. So you guys tell me what we should be???

Dr. Facebook Fever
01-04-2005, 03:17 PM
The Chiefs had 593 passing plays compared to only compared to 496 rushing plays. Consider that most of Trent Green's 25 rushes were actually passing plays and the gap widens further. Passing accounted for about 2/3 rds of our yardage.

Anyone who doesn't think the offense is tilted slightly toward the pass on this team does not have a firm grip on reality. That last sentence was thrown in there to get some disussion going on Rainman's poor forgotten thread.
That's interesting. I would have perceived (and did) our offense as run first....

:hmmm:

cdcox
01-04-2005, 03:23 PM
Here are the the percentage of offensive plays that are rushes for each team. Interesting that the top 6 teams are all playoff bound. Probably because the were running out the clock to win games, but the old addage that you run and play good defense to win seems to be equally true today.

Even though they pass more than they run, KC still is one of the most run oriented teams in the league.

ESPN sure doesn't make it easy to copy the stats from their web page into a spreadsheet. I wish they were on line so I could negative rep them.


Pittsburgh 0.610671937
Atlanta 0.540763674
NY Jets 0.529116466
San Diego 0.52811245
New England 0.506280193
Denver 0.499065421
Baltimore 0.495459132
Buffalo 0.49185336
Houston 0.480519481
Cleveland 0.478827362
Washington 0.460410557
Kansas City 0.455463728
Arizona 0.453677173
Seattle 0.452611219
Jacksonville 0.450050454
Dallas 0.446215139
NY Giants 0.445846477
Chicago 0.44467425
Indianapolis 0.441115702
Cincinnati 0.435258964
Detroit 0.428872497
Carolina 0.425832492
Green Bay 0.418803419
Tampa Bay 0.414120126
New Orleans 0.410515672
San Francisco 0.402534113
Tennessee 0.398860399
Minnesota 0.392893401
Philadelphia 0.391666667
St. Louis 0.376854599
Miami 0.375733855
Oakland 0.34893617

ramsey
01-04-2005, 03:29 PM
It's always run first, but because we've had such a strong running game the past few years, it has significantly made our passing game that much better.

We have more passing attempts but it's because the running game, over the past 3 seasons, has opened that up.

Dr. Facebook Fever
01-04-2005, 03:37 PM
It's always run first, but because we've had such a strong running game the past few years, it has significantly made our passing game that much better.

We have more passing attempts but it's because the running game, over the past 3 seasons, has opened that up.
An intelligent first post......nice job.

Amnorix
01-04-2005, 03:51 PM
Here's a complet list of teams that ran MORE than they passed:

Atlanta
Pittsburgh
New York Jets
San Diego
New England
Baltimore
Houston
Buffalo
Cleveland.

In Houston and Cleveland's case, it was *barely* more runs than passes. A small handful.

Every other team had more passes than runs, and some DRAMATICALLY so. I didn't do ratios for each team cuz that would take too long, but there were definitely some wildly imbalanced teams, including ones that didn't suck (and therefore need to throw all the time in the 2nd half ot catch up).

Also note a couple surprise teams (to me) that passed more than ran:

1. Carolina (too many hurt RBs, I guess)
2. NO (uhh, I like Deuce as my RB more than Brooks as my QB)
3. Dungver
4. Green Bay (Favre is past his prime, and Ahman Green and the GB OLine are awesome, but Sherman is WCO, so it's throw the ball all over the place, still...)
5. Jacksonville (would not have guessed)

Amnorix
01-04-2005, 03:54 PM
Pittsburgh 0.610671937
Atlanta 0.540763674
NY Jets 0.529116466
San Diego 0.52811245
New England 0.506280193
Denver 0.499065421
Baltimore 0.495459132
Buffalo 0.49185336
Houston 0.480519481
Cleveland 0.478827362


Hrmm....:hmmm:

This shows less than 50% for Denver on down through Cleveland, whereas my "attempts" number from ESPN's website has more attempted runs than passes.

Maybe some kind of weirdness involving sacks / QB scrambles is affecting these numbers? If so, then the above list is more likely to be right than the one I posted, as a sack may count as an "attempted run" on the list I was using.

cdcox
01-04-2005, 03:57 PM
Amnorix:

You forgot to include sacks in the teams' pass plays. That make the list of teams who ran more than passed even shorter:

Pittsburgh
Atlanta
NY Jets
San Diego
New England

cdcox
01-04-2005, 04:00 PM
Hrmm....:hmmm:

This shows less than 50% for Denver on down through Cleveland, whereas my "attempts" number from ESPN's website has more attempted runs than passes.

Maybe some kind of weirdness involving sacks / QB scrambles is affecting these numbers? If so, then the above list is more likely to be right than the one I posted, as a sack may count as an "attempted run" on the list I was using.

Pass plays = attempts + sacks

Runs = run attempts

In the NFL a sack is a tackle of the QB behind the line of scrimage, regardless of intent. Any play where the QB crosses the LOS is counted as a rushing attempt. Some of the runs by QBs were probably passing plays that turned into scrambles, but there is no way of accurately assessing that without breaking down the game film.

tyton75
01-04-2005, 04:04 PM
really.. does it matter.. whatever they are doing.. its freaking working... Offense isnt' the issue

2bikemike
01-04-2005, 04:12 PM
I think our attempts at each would have been more balanced had we not had to try and win so many games from behind or were not so concerned about our defense stinking so badly that no lead was safe.

I also wonder how balanced it was before Priest went down. I would go look up that info if I weren't a Lazy bastage.

Hog Rider
01-04-2005, 05:22 PM
Now you got me thinkin' and goin' hmmmmmmm.

Is a nearly lateral screen pass really a pass play? Is a toss really a running play just cause the toss is backward? If it's a short pass and ya do a lot of runnin' isn't that more like a running play? And if it is a running play and ya end up "passin'" a lot of defenders isn't that sorta what you could call a "pass" play? And if during a pass play the receiver get run all over, or runs all over the place.............?

hmmmmmm!