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

[the Talking Can]

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

some numbers to chew on from arrowhead pride

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.

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.

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

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.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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

The interior of the offensive line, the right tackle, the tight end position and the slot are all issues.

They were issues before the season began, so I'm not sure why this is news?

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

A lot of truth to that.

The 'true fan' has become an amalgam of 200 different posters saying different things at different times.

But whatever - we all fall victim to it.

On a board with literally thousands of members, there's going to be disagreement over literally everything.

I know these guys exist. On other boards I've dealt with the Cassel loving Bowe hater. It was absurd and he could never logically justify it. Even still, that was a minority. This 'true fan' is one of every five hundred people and KC fans act like it's everyone other than themselves.

It's a tiny minority. I blame Barry. **** that guy with a rusty nail spiked dildo.

[Mav]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

shut the **** up, you tool

emo maverick to the rescue...

ass hurt TTC to the comeback. Didn't you have to be somewhere?

Keep being the internet tough guy. Its cute......

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by SNR

That's fine if you have a legit short yardage back on your team, but too often teams switch horses midstream to the bigger guy because they think that extra size means extra power, which = first down.

When backs gets stuffed on short yardage situations it's because the defensive line and linebackers and the kitchen sink has leaked through the gaps and has already wrapped up the carrier. Very very few RBs in the NFL have the leg-churning ability to push forward for the needed extra yard after getting contacted. And quite often a lot of those RBs who can do that aren't even the biggest guys in the world (Chris Ivory is a name that comes to mind in the game today).

So it becomes just as much about finding a guy who has the vision to find a spot, the speed to surge before contact can be made. All in all, teams should probably just hand it off to the guy who has already warmed up plenty in the game and is the most talented RB on the team.

Knile Davis doesn't necessarily have more power than JC, certainly doesn't have his vision, and his fumblitis is very concerning with that many tacklers looking to strip the ball in a crucial situation.

Just give it to Charles.

I recall Davis converting a few 3rd downs in pre season. Ill admit the sample size is small.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Saying this over and over and over doesn't make it true.

So the defense can carry the team when they are not scoring, but can't carry the team should Alex throw an INT?

How in the hell are Brees, Dalton, Schaub, Cutler, Geno etc. winning games?

And it's just focusing on the negative possiblities. Like nothing good can ever possibly happen if Alex Smith tries a downfield pass.

And they say we're pessimistic...

[Mav]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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

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?

[the Talking Can]

Originally Posted by SNR

That's fine if you have a legit short yardage back on your team, but too often teams switch horses midstream to the bigger guy because they think that extra size means extra power, which = first down.

When backs gets stuffed on short yardage situations it's because the defensive line and linebackers and the kitchen sink has leaked through the gaps and has already wrapped up the carrier. Very very few RBs in the NFL have the leg-churning ability to push forward for the needed extra yard after getting contacted. And quite often a lot of those RBs who can do that aren't even the biggest guys in the world (Chris Ivory is a name that comes to mind in the game today).

So it becomes just as much about finding a guy who has the vision to find a spot, the speed to surge before contact can be made. All in all, teams should probably just hand it off to the most talented RB on the team who has already warmed up plenty with several carries, rather than giving it to some lumbering FB whose first touch comes against a wall of ferocious defenders who are 95% sure what the playcall is going to be.

Knile Davis doesn't necessarily have more power than JC, certainly doesn't have his vision, and his fumblitis is very concerning with that many tacklers looking to strip the ball in a crucial situation.

Just give it to Charles.

we could use a marion barber

but yeah, with Charles our OL should be able to get a freakin yard

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Mavericks Ace

The team gave up almost 300 yards rushing to the Eagles. If the eagles have the lead, and are still gashing the Chiefs how do you stop them to score?

Now. UNDERSTAND WHAT IM SAYING. The offense HAS TO IMPROVE for this team to have more than just regular season success. That's a given.

But, considering the circumstances, especially about the Eagles game, short week, only week 3 of the season, injuries, and the fact that Alex Smith threw for 273 yards, its a step isn't it?

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.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

They're also doing wacky shit like delayed handoffs from the shotgun with 3 or 4 wide, so he's not even getting a run at the line before he's hit.

I'm not really a "go big" kind of guy, but in that situation I'd tend to prefer the flexibility of the I formation, and going play action if you want to try for something big, rather than hoping you can spread them and beat their nickel out of the shotgun. It's not like you're really surprising anybody when you try to run it on 3rd and short, even if you're in shotgun, so why make it harder for yourself.

('course when it works we'll all say "wow! what a playcall!")

Yes. There has been some bad (imo) 3rd down playcalling, but I still feel like the poor interior line play is the biggest problem.

In terms of the offense as a whole I'd like to see Alex be more aggressive. I think he can get away with it. He's got to have more confidence in his arm. He's not Cassel.

[Mav]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The interior of the offensive line, the right tackle, the tight end position and the slot are all issues.

They were issues before the season began, so I'm not sure why this is news?

The slot receiver issue boggles my mind. Mostly because it shouldn't be an issue. I have no idea what Hemmingway did to Andy Reid.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

"Alex Smith doesn't take risks. News at 11".

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.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

And it's just focusing on the negative possiblities. Like nothing good can ever possibly happen if Alex Smith tries a downfield pass.

And they say we're pessimistic...

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

[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.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Geno etc. winning games?

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

[OnTheWarpath15]

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.

.