Chiefs Chiefs' offense: "one of the worst in the league, by nearly every measure" - Page 36

**the Talking Can** · 06:49 AM

http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2013/9...chiefs-offense

some numbers to chew on from arrowhead pride

Quote:

The Chiefs are actually 12th in the league in PPG, at 23.7. But if you take away the 14 points the defense is directly responsible for, that number drops to 19 PPG, which would be tied for 23rd - with the Raiders. The Chiefs are relying on the defense to score points, which isn't good. Defensive scoring is random and shouldn't be part of the game plan. They didn't need Tamba Hali's pick-6 to beat the Jaguars, but they did need Eric Berry's against the Eagles.

They also are just not moving the ball; their 333 yds/gm is 21st in the league and their 4.9 yds/play ranks 25th. "Well Kyle," you may ask, " if the Chiefs offense is so bad, how are they undefeated this year?" That's an excellent question, thank you for asking. The answer is that the defense and special teams are much, much better than we thought.

Quote:

The problem the Chiefs are having is getting to the Red Zone in the first place. They're 30th in yards per drive, with only Tampa Bay and Jacksonville behind them, and Cleveland directly in front of them (not good company to be in). This is a really, really bad offense. But here's the real kicker: the Chiefs' offense has the best starting field position in the NFL this year, and still can't score.

Quote:

The Chiefs average 17 yards per drive better field position than their opponents (ok, ok, 16.95), the best mark in the NFL (2nd table). Only two other teams average more than 10 yards better starting field position than their opponents (New England and Chicago). The Chiefs' average starting line of scrimmage (LOS) is their own 36.97 yard line (best in the NFL), while their opponents average starting LOS is their own 20.02 yard line (also best in the NFL). What all of that means is the Chiefs's offense is handed consistently great starting field position and can't do anything with it, then they let the special teams pin opponents deep in their own territory. The defense bails out the offense by not letting opponents move the ball, giving the offense the ball back with great starting field position. Lather, rinse, repeat.

There's a nice breakdown of our defense against philly over there as well:
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/9/2...p-kelly-eagles

Quote:

I have to reiterate and emphasize just how much the Chiefs played man to man -- like a ton of it. And they have the secondary to handle it, unlike most teams in the NFL. Specifically, they matched up Sean Smith on Cooper a lot on the outside. If this had been a prize fight, Cooper's corner would have thrown in the towel somewhere around the middle of the second quarter. Smith owned him right up until the end of the game when he started cramping up. Cooper just couldn't shake him, especially on those aforementioned deep routes Kelly had him running all game.

**the Talking Can** · 09-26-2013, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Knile Davis goes down much, much more easily than JC does. I'm not sure I'd want him on there in short yardage situations. He doesn't run all that much like a back who's as big as he is. And he can't pass protect (yet) and has questionable hands if you want to flare it out.

sounds promising

**RealSNR** · 09-26-2013, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavericks Ace

find me an elite qb that doesn't have a good/great option at tight end?

Not a 3rd round rookie, and a journeyman back up in a guy like Fasano?

Aaron Rodgers won a Super Bowl without Jermichael Finley

**Mav** · 09-26-2013, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

What's with the unrealistic hypotheticals?

How exactly are the Eagles getting the lead in your fantasy scenario?

The defense was getting gashed on the ground, yet gave up 16 points.

A turnover was going to change that?

Gimme a ****ing break.

With no turnovers at all, which was after all your hypothetical, not mine, and considering the eagles only lost 23-16, one turnover instead of a Colquitt pin down couldn't of made the difference?

never mind. Just you know what. I understand after yesterday how this goes. Ill make a solid point, you shit on it without considering it, throw back up my meltdown thread in my face, pat yourself on the back about your rep with your boys in the back ground pimping you. Just never mind.

Okay. You are right. One turn over, no matter even in a game that you only won by 7

keg in kc · 09-26-2013, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

sounds promising

I think he is. Eventually.

WhiteWhale · 09-26-2013, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

If ****ing Anthony Fasano and a 3rd round rookie are the key to this offense, we have some significant issues.

Good teams will attack your weaknesses to win games.

Weaknesses are a really big problem. You don't need a star at every position, but bad players can hurt you just as much as great ones can help you.

keg in kc · 09-26-2013, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavericks Ace

With no turnovers at all, which was after all your hypothetical, not mine, and considering the eagles only lost 23-16, one turnover instead of a Colquitt pin down couldn't of made the difference?

never mind. Just you know what. I understand after yesterday how this goes. Ill make a solid point, you shit on it without considering it, throw back up my meltdown thread in my face, pat yourself on the back about your rep with your boys in the back ground pimping you. Just never mind.

Okay. You are right. One turn over, no matter even in a game that you only won by 7

26-16.

**Mav** · 09-26-2013, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

So where is the line of demarcation? Is there never such a thing as "too safe"?

If you've watched playoff football in the last few years, surely you recognize that successful post season QB play takes a ****ton more than just playing it safe.

Frankly, posts like the one I quoted are just atempts to be an obtuse prick to deny the truth staring you in the face.

No. I don't think anyone denies that Alex Smith refuses to take risks. Just there seem to be people who that doesn't bother as long as the team is winning.

or, I mean when he did take a risk, he converted a pretty crucial third down....

So, maybe that's why it doesn't bother me as much. I know that if he has to, he can....

**OnTheWarpath15** · 09-26-2013, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Yeah, his 3TD's versus 6 INT's while playing the Bucs and Bills should be hailed.

Funny, no one seems to care how KC wins their games.

But anyone else? It's dissected to pieces.

I love me a good old fashioned double standard from you folks.

"3-0!"

Funny, Team X is 3-0 or 2-1 and has 4-6 INT's from their QB.

"Yeah, well. Did you see HOW they won?"

You y'all actually believe the bullshit you type?

**Mav** · 09-26-2013, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

26-16.

thanks.

WhiteWhale · 09-26-2013, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

And had Smith taken risks and thrown the ball into double coverage, it's likely this team would be 1-2 at best.

Is that really want you want?

I'm not positive I agree with you, but I can't see the WR's.

From what I heard KC had guys coming open all day against Dallas down the field and that reporters in the press box were having quite the chuckle at how he wouldn't take ANY risks.

Mistake free football is great and this team needs to build confidence and win, but fortune favors the bold. There is nothing at life you can really succeed at without risk.

jspchief · 09-26-2013, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Funny, no one seems to care how KC wins their games.

But anyone else? It's dissected to pieces.

I love me a good old fashioned double standard from you folks.

"3-0!"

Funny, Team X is 3-0 or 2-1 and has 4-6 INT's from their QB.

"Yeah, well. Did you see HOW they won?"

You y'all actually believe the bullshit you type?

.

**Mav** · 09-26-2013, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Their implication of the bolded comment + the excuses used to defend him = comedy gold.

That's your own perception. I admit he refuses to take the risks. I haven't excused why he doesn't other than to state the obvious.

The Chiefs have been in situations that they really haven't had to force the ball.

But yet, on 3rd and 10 with the momentum clearly on the side of the Eagles, a bone headed mistake by McCluster put the Chiefs in a tough spot, and, Alex Smith, tooookkkkkk a risk right?

WhiteWhale · 09-26-2013, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Funny, no one seems to care how KC wins their games.

But anyone else? It's dissected to pieces.

I love me a good old fashioned double standard from you folks.

"3-0!"

Funny, Team X is 3-0 or 2-1 and has 4-6 INT's from their QB.

"Yeah, well. Did you see HOW they won?"

You y'all actually believe the bullshit you type?

How a player contributes to a win is something any intelligent human would do.

I will say this... a good defensive team (which is what is carrying both squads) is going to get further with the offense that makes fewer mistakes. If Geno doesn't reel it in, he's not going to keep winning.

Likewise if Alex doesn't show some more confidence in his ability to throw the ball in the moderate/deep ranges (especially moderate) it's going to catch up to him.

What KC is doing is more sustainable right now.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 09-26-2013, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

Aaron Rodgers won a Super Bowl without Jermichael Finley

Ravens just won with Dennis Pitta.

Eli won with Bear Pascoe, Jake Ballard and Travis Beckham.

Brees won before Graham, IIRC that was the year Shockey and Darnell Dinkins were the TE's.

But yeah, you need a ****ing superstar at TE.

**DaneMcCloud** · 09-26-2013, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

So where is the line of demarcation? Is there never such a thing as "too safe"?

If you've watched playoff football in the last few years, surely you recognize that successful post season QB play takes a ****ton more than just playing it safe.

Frankly, posts like the one I quoted are just atempts to be an obtuse prick to deny the truth staring you in the face.

I just find it ****ing absolutely absurd that this team had won three games in 612 days and is now 3-0 after three weeks.

Yet Alex Smith, who was as dissected as a player to a level I've NEVER witnessed in this forum for months on end, is playing exactly the same as he did in San Francisco in 2011 and 2012, and people complain that he hasn't changed his game or "SOMEDAY, it's going to catch up to him".

Face it: He is who he is. That isn't going to change. Discussing it ad nauseam certainly won't change it.

It makes people like you, OTWP and TTC look bitter and spiteful.

At least Parker had the good sense to discontinue posting due to his hatred of the Chiefs.