Great win and all, but this is from Grantland (pointing out how atrocious our play selection was in the Red Zone). Conclusion: Chiefs won in spite of their offensive play calls.

"Thank You for Not Coaching

For this week's most confounding coaching decisions, we turned to our followers on Twitter, who alerted us to a variety of different blunders. While there are a few common threads we'll ignore (John Fox being ultra-conservative, Tom Coughlin challenging out of sheer desperation), there are still plenty of situations to break down, thanks to the usual hodgepodge of curious game-calling choices. And we'll start with the Packers-Chiefs tilt, where @JoeConte pointed out that Romeo Crennel repeatedly bungled his short-yardage decisions.

On the opening drive, the Chiefs had two chances from the one-yard line and decided to throw passes with Kyle Orton both times. With a 0-0 game against the best offense in the league, they chose to kick a field goal. Sure, we know that the Packers ended up scoring just 14 points, but you can't dance with the champ! A 3-0 margin with 54 minutes to go is essentially never going to hold up.

Before we go any further, let's note that the math here is very simple. The average team will score on these carries 56 percent of the time, so your expected outcome by scoring is (7 points * .56) = 3.92 points. You can't score 3.92 points by kicking, so you're essentially giving up a full point by kicking. The Packers have also allowed teams to convert in 75 percent of power runs, the third-worst rate in the league. So our 56 percent estimate is conservative. You also get the benefit of backing the Green Bay offense up inside their 1-yard line as opposed to giving them the result of a kickoff, which is an average of about 22 yards. Based on the average number of points a team scores with a drive that starts from the 1-yard line as opposed to the 22-yard line, you're adding about another full point of value. By kicking instead of going for it, in even an average situation, you're basically throwing two points in the garbage. When you're playing an offensive juggernaut and it's early in the first quarter, well, you simply can't throw points away.

It would be one thing if Crennel just had no faith in his team's short-yardage capabilities, but he changed his mind on Kansas City's first drive of the second quarter. Again, the Chiefs failed on second-and-1 and ended up facing a fourth-and-inches with 3:28 left. They were up 6-0; again, you can't assume that a nine-point lead is going to hold up against a dominant offense. This time, for some reason, Crennel chose to go for it. It was the correct decision, but what was different about this situation as opposed to the first one? The Chiefs were promptly stuffed when they ran a simple handoff up the middle.

That would all have been weird enough, but Crennel got to face a third decision in this same vein! With a 9-7 lead early in the fourth quarter, the Chiefs were faced with a fourth-and-goal from the Green Bay 2-yard line. It's harder to convert from the 2-yard line, but not by much — the conversion rate falls from 55.2 percent to 48.6 percent. That's still an expected total of 3.4 points, so it's better than a field goal, and you still get the superior follow-up situation of pinning a team extremely deep in their own territory (something that a dominant Chiefs pass rush might have appreciated). You're giving up 1.4 points by kicking. This decision was more defensible because it pushed the lead outside of one field goal, but there was 11:28 left in the game when Crennel chose to kick as opposed to going for it. Color commentator Daryl Johnston chimed in to say that it was a good decision because the Chiefs had been stuffed on the previous drive, which is one of the dumbest things you'll hear a commentator say all year. Stories will be written today about how the Chiefs won under the leadership of Romeo Crennel, but don't buy it. They won in spite of him."

Play calling was different / better for sure but still only 1 TD...

This.

The line could not block for shit near the EZ.

Play selection there was not good, either.

Clay Mathews was invisible.

Certainly. Everyone knows GBs D isn't very good.

Still though, the difference between Kyle and Matt is night and day.

Loved the look on Orton's face after Woodson bit on his pump fake and he dropped the ball into the bucket to Bowe. Was like "Gotcha".

Same against Bailey?

Dumb analysis. He critiques KC for not running the ball the first series noting that on average 56% of the time teams can run successfully. If he knew anything about KC, he'd know that KC can't move the ball in short yardage. In fact, both of Orton's passes should have been TDs. Breaston was open, but the ball was slightly behind him, and McClain dropped the ball.

Then he notes that on the 2nd drive, they got stuffed on the ground.

The writer only talks about league wide averages, and doesn't take into account KC's atrocious red zone offense this year.

It's complete crap to say KC won in spite of Romeo.

They lead the league in takeaways and Orton is supposedly an INT prone QB. The fact is Orton outplayed GB and outplayed Rodgers yesterday. I'd take Rodgers 10 out of 10 times but yesterday Orton was the better QB.

I'm glad someone started this thread. I was thinking the same thing. From the opening drive, there were big differences. Different personnel, different plays, quicker play calls, quicker tempo. I was wondering who was calling the plays myself.

Also, the little things were different too. Like the really quick snap count and very quick release of Orton on the WR quick out. That play rarely works but it did almost every time because of how fast they ran it.

I also believe Orton set a career high in completion percentage. Very "Brees-like" :):):):):):):):)

That quick hitter to Breaston was pretty damn great. Don't remember if it was a hot read or not but man that play was executed perfectly.
Posted via Mobile Device