Chiefs Chiefs' offense: "one of the worst in the league, by nearly every measure" - Page 30

**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.

keg in kc · 09-26-2013, 12:30 PM

That's such a defeatist attitude, assuming that Smith "forcing" the ball to his receivers (which isn't what anyone is actually saying, but that's another topic) will automatically result in turnovers and losses.

Smith attempting passes into tighter coverage could just as easily result in long gains or penalties, a team that's able to better sustain drives, a team that's loosening up defenses and opening up more in the running game earlier in the day, and a team that's still 3-0 and looking formidable in all phases of the game.

Not all change is necessarily bad...

Yes there's some risk. But there's also a real potential for reward. There's something to be said for playing it safe, but there's also something to be said for trusting your playmakers and giving them opportunities to make something happen.

Pablo · 09-26-2013, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

That's such a defeatist attitude, assuming that Smith "forcing" the ball to his receivers (which isn't what anyone is actually saying, but that's another topic) will automatically result in turnovers and losses.

Smith attempting passes into to tighter coverage could just as easily result in long gains or penalties, a team that's able to better sustain drives, a team that's loosening up defenses and opening up more in the running game earlier in the day, and a team that's still 3-0 and looking formidable in all phases of the game.

Not all change is necessarily bad...

Yes there's some risk. But there's also some potential reward.

Definitely this.

Titty Meat · 09-26-2013, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I'd love to see what Hemingway could do with McCluster's snaps. He's simply more dangerous in every facet.

For ****s sake this.

McCluster sucks and is a liability on special teams.

**DaneMcCloud** · 09-26-2013, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo

It's not that Smith is playing scared; he just isn't looking to Bowe nearly enough. We have a #1 WR. Use him like he is.

My view is that if the Chiefs had a viable TE threat (i.e. Gronk, Graham, Gonzalez, etc.), Bowe would have more "looks".

As it stands, Avery is getting those looks because Bowe's doubled up or in traffic. Not having an even average tight end is really hurting this offense, IMO.

Sandy Vagina · 09-26-2013, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

What kind of psychological disorder is it when a person refuses to accept that he simply isn't wanted?

Been very clear about this. I don't concern myself with things outside of my control. I don't take these things personally. I don't process rejection or acceptance from a bunch of anonymous people on a forum.

I personally just like to read and discuss football... but when the talk turns towards me or posters in general? I just yawn and lose interest. I don't care about you or where you from or what you are into. But if you have something interesting to say about the Chiefs or football, then I'll take that in and evaluate it on my own.

Now, is there anything else? or can everyone just get back to talking football?

**the Talking Can** · 09-26-2013, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Why are you just stirring shit up for no reason?

and, it's funny that me taking the time to prove a 49er fan is full of shit - Bowe ain't lackadaisical - equals 'stirring shit up' to you

actual football talk

meanwhile, you've shown up in this thread and the only thing you have done is complain about posters, which is the only thing you ever do

or wait, does the fact that I posted a football article (2 actually) from Arrowhead Pride constitute 'stirring up shit'?

really?

when the **** do you ever talk football?

Pablo · 09-26-2013, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I'd love to see what Hemingway could do with McCluster's snaps. He's simply more dangerous in every facet.

And this.

Serious question: Does McCluster earn himself a spot on the bench with another muffed kick/punt/fumble?

You'd have to think there's no real attachment there for this coaching staff.

Marcellus · 09-26-2013, 12:31 PM

WTF was MCCluster doing returning the kick off in the 4th quarter when Demps had been tearing it up all game?

WTF was that?

**DaneMcCloud** · 09-26-2013, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Yes there's some risk. But there's also a real potential for reward.

If the risk entails losing a close game, it's not worth the risk.

Also, I'm with you on Hemmingway. He should be the starter and McCluster should be traded for a sixer of PBR.

McCluster looked slow as **** one-on-one in the Philly game. It was so absurd that I literally laughed out loud.

Pablo · 09-26-2013, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

My view is that if the Chiefs had a viable TE threat (i.e. Gronk, Graham, Gonzalez, etc.), Bowe would have more "looks".

As it stands, Avery is getting those looks because Bowe's doubled up or in traffic. Not having an even average tight end is really hurting this offense, IMO.

Shit, if the Chiefs had any three of those guys I have no doubt our offense would be viable.

What's the word on Fasano anyhow? Is he playing Sunday?

**the Talking Can** · 09-26-2013, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

That's such a defeatist attitude, assuming that Smith "forcing" the ball to his receivers (which isn't what anyone is actually saying, but that's another topic) will automatically result in turnovers and losses.

Smith attempting passes into to tighter coverage could just as easily result in long gains or penalties, a team that's able to better sustain drives, a team that's loosening up defenses and opening up more in the running game earlier in the day, and a team that's still 3-0 and looking formidable in all phases of the game.

Not all change is necessarily bad...

Yes there's some risk. But there's also a real potential for reward.

any other QB just 'throws a pass'....but for Smith it's "forcing him to throw passes"...oh the horror...

DJ's left nut · 09-26-2013, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo

If that's the case, then I understand Smith looking away from him. I just suppose I hadn't noticed it much outside of the Eagles game.

It really stood out to me at the Cowboys game when I was trying to draw comparisons between his effort and Bryant's. I watched him in his routes quite a bit to see if he was giving up when it wasn't designed for him (like Bryant was).

He doesn't, first and foremost. But I also noticed that he was getting a shitload of attention.

Smith's just not forcing throws to him, though perhaps on occasion he should. But like I said, when he has the results haven't been there so he's just not comfortable with him yet.

Give it time. We all know that Smith is a programmed QB and he just doesn't have that part as part of his code yet. I think it'll come.

Marcellus · 09-26-2013, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

when the **** do you ever talk football?

You seriously need to go back and start reading posts, but I doubt you would understand them anyway.

Stop riding my coat tails and do something besides whining about 49ers fans.

WhiteWhale · 09-26-2013, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac-NinersChiefs

You play... but you can half-ass it to protect certain players in an obvious win.

That's not what is happening.

KC is struggling to move the ball and convert on 3rd down.

We're not pulling players in the 4th quarter of a blowout.

If the offense doesn't improve, then it will catch up to us. I doubt we can go 13 more games without a turnover.

KCUnited · 09-26-2013, 12:34 PM

It wouldn't be a force if he got the ball out quicker, but he is who he is.

09-26-2013, 12:30 PM	#436
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	That's such a defeatist attitude, assuming that Smith "forcing" the ball to his receivers (which isn't what anyone is actually saying, but that's another topic) will automatically result in turnovers and losses. Smith attempting passes into tighter coverage could just as easily result in long gains or penalties, a team that's able to better sustain drives, a team that's loosening up defenses and opening up more in the running game earlier in the day, and a team that's still 3-0 and looking formidable in all phases of the game. Not all change is necessarily bad... Yes there's some risk. But there's also a real potential for reward. There's something to be said for playing it safe, but there's also something to be said for trusting your playmakers and giving them opportunities to make something happen.
Posts: 58,682

09-26-2013, 12:31 PM	#443
Marcellus Diablo Negro Join Date: Sep 2003 Casino cash: $2922662	WTF was MCCluster doing returning the kick off in the 4th quarter when Demps had been tearing it up all game? WTF was that?
Posts: 69,339

09-26-2013, 12:34 PM	#450
KCUnited Cheat Death Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Land of Drincoln Casino cash: $2128244	It wouldn't be a force if he got the ball out quicker, but he is who he is.
Posts: 34,003