Chiefs Do you agree with this quote? [Archive]

Hammock Parties

08-04-2008, 01:25 PM

sedated

08-04-2008, 01:25 PM

absolutely

Chiefnj2

08-04-2008, 01:26 PM

Yes.

RJ

08-04-2008, 01:26 PM

I think that is absolutely true.

FAX

08-04-2008, 01:29 PM

Depends on the "thought process", I suppose. I don't think it makes sense to intentionally try not to score in favor of field position and time of possession.

I mean, if you have a good defense, a score is worth a heck of a lot. Plus, a good defense is going to help you with both TOP and field position. The idea that you don't need touchdowns in today's NFL is kinda wacky.

FAX

Demonpenz

08-04-2008, 01:30 PM

True. I would run the ball more and control the clock if you have a good defense. Don't be afraid to punt.

DeezNutz

08-04-2008, 01:31 PM

Yep. The thought process, particularly late in games, sure changed under Vermeil when KC had an embarrassing defense.

dorseybowe

08-04-2008, 01:34 PM

YES

Instead of punt, punt, punt, it's punt, interception, punt.

Rain Man

08-04-2008, 01:34 PM

It may change your thinking in certain situations, but I don't think it should change your overall philosophy. FAX put it best: with a good defense, a touchdown is pretty valuable, so try to score as many as possible. I'll add that, with a bad defense, a touchdown is pretty necessary, so try to score as many as possible. If your end goal is the same - score as many touchdowns as possible - then the performance of your defense is irrelevant.

StcChief

08-04-2008, 01:38 PM

no doubt about it.

RJ

08-04-2008, 01:40 PM

I think everyone would agree that it shouldn't change the thought process. But it sure does seem to. Teams become more willing to simply control the ball, more willing to settle for field goals or punts that land inside the 20.

Bugeater

08-04-2008, 01:41 PM

No, not one bit, you should be trying to score every time you have the ball. The only exception may be when you're trying to run out the clock at the end of a game.

2112

08-04-2008, 01:48 PM

If you're terrified of making mistakes, yes.

'Hamas' Jenkins

08-04-2008, 01:53 PM

noa

08-04-2008, 01:53 PM

I think it changes your strategy in that you might be willing to take more risks. For example, if your defense is good and can handle being on the field for a while, you can go for big gains and quick plays and not have to worry about keeping the defense on the sidelines so they can rest.

Having a good defense shouldn't make a coach more conservative on offense, it should let him be more bold with the offensive play-calling.

JuicesFlowing

08-04-2008, 01:54 PM

That quote is too broad, because you have to look at the situation you're in during each game ...

Rain Man

08-04-2008, 01:55 PM

I don't understand the argument that a good defense would make you more conservative, i.e., run the ball more and chew up the clock. All that means is that everyone scores less, which means that one mistake by your defense can cost you the game.

If your defense is really good, then it should make you go with a more dynamic offense, because you can tolerate a higher risk factor. If something goes wrong, your defense can limit the damage. Example: it's 3rd and 2 and you're on your own 18 yard line. If your defense is good, it should allow you to try something riskier (with a higher potential payoff) because if you have to punt your defense is more likely to hold. It shouldn't make you more conservative.

Oh my god. I think I just figured out why Marty never won a Super Bowl.

Rain Man

08-04-2008, 01:58 PM

I think it changes your strategy in that you might be willing to take more risks. For example, if your defense is good and can handle being on the field for a while, you can go for big gains and quick plays and not have to worry about keeping the defense on the sidelines so they can rest.

Having a good defense shouldn't make a coach more conservative on offense, it should let him be more bold with the offensive play-calling.

I feel like that guy who invented the telescope in the Middle Ages, but announced it a week after Galileo independently announced the same thing.

Jilly

08-04-2008, 02:00 PM

I think it effects it, but it shouldn't effect it negatively. I would think if you have a good d you wouldn't just give up on your o, but start working on it. I don't understand the philosophy that because one is good the other has to be bad. Seems the Patriots and well, hell, the Colts, even last year, have struck a good balance.

Hammock Parties

08-04-2008, 02:03 PM

Stay out of the football thread, woman.

BigMeatballDave

08-04-2008, 02:07 PM

If you have a good 'D', why would you be conservative on 'O'?

Skip Towne

08-04-2008, 02:08 PM

Tits. I'd rather talk about tits.

JuicesFlowing

08-04-2008, 02:10 PM

I think it effects it, but it shouldn't effect it negatively. I would think if you have a good d you wouldn't just give up on your o, but start working on it. I don't understand the philosophy that because one is good the other has to be bad. Seems the Patriots and well, hell, the Colts, even last year, have struck a good balance.

All teams try to be balanced. It's not a philosophy to try to be bad on one side of the ball. It's just difficult to build a perfectly balanced team for whatever reason. Nobody tries to fail at one thing while excelling at the other ...

sedated

08-04-2008, 02:12 PM

If you have a good 'D', why would you be conservative on 'O'?

I see in a more opposite way. If you have a bad D, wouldn't you want to be less conservative on O?

dirk digler

08-04-2008, 02:13 PM

Depends on the "thought process", I suppose. I don't think it makes sense to intentionally try not to score in favor of field position and time of possession.

I mean, if you have a good defense, a score is worth a heck of a lot. Plus, a good defense is going to help you with both TOP and field position. The idea that you don't need touchdowns in today's NFL is kinda wacky.

FAX

Yep. This quote sounds like it came from Herm. I want an attacking D and an attacking Offense.

SBK

08-04-2008, 02:15 PM

I the league now I really think you need to try and average about 30 points a game. If you do that and have a great defense you'll win a lot of games.

If you try and average 14 points, no matter how good your defense is you're going to be pretty average.

dirk digler

08-04-2008, 02:16 PM

I don't understand the argument that a good defense would make you more conservative, i.e., run the ball more and chew up the clock. All that means is that everyone scores less, which means that one mistake by your defense can cost you the game.

If your defense is really good, then it should make you go with a more dynamic offense, because you can tolerate a higher risk factor. If something goes wrong, your defense can limit the damage. Example: it's 3rd and 2 and you're on your own 18 yard line. If your defense is good, it should allow you to try something riskier (with a higher potential payoff) because if you have to punt your defense is more likely to hold. It shouldn't make you more conservative.

Oh my god. I think I just figured out why Marty never won a Super Bowl.

LMAO...Exactly.

acesn8s

08-04-2008, 02:19 PM

WOW!!! After reading this thread, I guess when Mike Tirico said that Randy Moss made the Raiders defense better, he was right. :shock:

IMO An offense should be able to do what ever it needs to do to score regardless of the defense.

the Talking Can

08-04-2008, 02:41 PM

I don't understand the argument that a good defense would make you more conservative, i.e., run the ball more and chew up the clock. All that means is that everyone scores less, which means that one mistake by your defense can cost you the game.

If your defense is really good, then it should make you go with a more dynamic offense, because you can tolerate a higher risk factor. If something goes wrong, your defense can limit the damage. Example: it's 3rd and 2 and you're on your own 18 yard line. If your defense is good, it should allow you to try something riskier (with a higher potential payoff) because if you have to punt your defense is more likely to hold. It shouldn't make you more conservative.

Oh my god. I think I just figured out why Marty never won a Super Bowl.

and why Belicheck has more rings than fingers....

Herm, unfortunately, will never understand....

Demonpenz

08-04-2008, 02:47 PM

If I had a good defense I would try to pound the rock and play the game close to the vets and take advantage of the good defense. Maybe on 3rd and 8 run some play action and hell maybe even run a running play on 3rd and long.

blueballs

08-04-2008, 02:51 PM

Even if they don't think your gay
you should still try and score
every chance you get

Demonpenz

08-04-2008, 02:52 PM

and why Belicheck has more rings than fingers....

Herm, unfortunately, will never understand....

i am sure that has nothing to do with Tom Brady "RoolMeyes:

Deberg_1990

08-04-2008, 02:55 PM

"I hate Big Offense"

Herm

the Talking Can

08-04-2008, 02:57 PM

i am sure that has nothing to do with Tom Brady "RoolMeyes:

we're talking about systems....Belicheck understnds that you have to have a dynamic offense...obviously it helps to have talent...talent is a prerequisite for anything, offense or defense..

run up the butt/swing pass football is outmoded, outdated, pointless, stupid, offensive, and boring....

Deberg_1990

08-04-2008, 02:59 PM

obviously it helps to have talent...talent is a prerequisite for anything, offense or defense..

I wonder how Belicheck would look with Huard as his QB?

Pasta Little Brioni

08-04-2008, 03:59 PM

I wonder how Belicheck would look with Huard as his QB?

I doubt they'd be throwing 40 times a game that is for sure.

Bowser

08-04-2008, 04:14 PM

Yes. It shouldn't, but it does.

Oh, to have a coach that wants to attack on BOTH sides of the ball.

Mecca

08-04-2008, 04:17 PM

I hate that attitude, first and foremost you should want to be good on both sides of the ball, and if that is the case 1 shouldn't override the other.

You should always have your foot down on the peddle to put the other team away, getting up 1 score and being conservative is how you lose games...

Zouk

08-04-2008, 04:24 PM

Yes this is somewhat true.

But far more important is the quality of your QB / pass protection vs. the ability of your opponent's QB / pass protection. That drives the chess match and how you manage the clock and pacing. Turnovers determine the outcome of a majority of games, meaning that offenses actively lose most games. Knowing when and how to avoid this is key.

This is why Dungy and Belichick coached one way in Tampa (and still almost made the Super Bowl with Shaun King) and Cleveland (and won a division title with a minimally talented team) and a different way in Indy and New England.

Fairplay

08-04-2008, 04:47 PM

To broad a statement to give a yes or no to.

Bearcat

08-04-2008, 04:54 PM

the Talking Can

08-04-2008, 05:31 PM

I wonder how Belicheck would look with Huard as his QB?

better than herm....

cdcox

08-04-2008, 06:26 PM

The goal of your offense should be maximize its net points, which I'm defining as the points the offense scores minus the points your offense contributes to the other team (by letting them score more points than they normally would without the offensive screw ups). This offensive goal is completely independent of what your defense is capable of. If you maximize the net points by the offense, in the long run, you will win the most games possible given your defensive abilities.

Now, those who are mathematically less astute (cough Herm, cough Marty) will select a strategy that lowers the average net points for that situation in return for lower risk. Statistically speaking, these coaches are willing to trade a lower average in order to get a lower variance. Long term, over enough games, this is a losing strategy.

Maximize your net points on offense, and the risk will take of itself.

philfree

08-04-2008, 06:51 PM

Sometimes.

PhilFree:arrow:

mcan

08-04-2008, 07:09 PM

I voted YES, but I don't think the difference should be drastic.

No matter the quality of your defense, your goal should be to move the football as far as you can on every play, ultimately to the end of scoring points. This should be done with an estimated expected value computation.

The quality of your defense DOES figure into that expected value. However, I think most "Smash mouth" teams have it backwards. If your defense is steller, then going three and out hurts your team less. You can, therefore, afford to be MORE aggressive on offense. Conversely, if your defense stinks, you should try to avoid taking high risk shots that might lead to turnovers and/or three and outs.

Boon

08-04-2008, 07:17 PM

FAX

08-04-2008, 07:30 PM

I voted YES, but I don't think the difference should be drastic.

No matter the quality of your defense, your goal should be to move the football as far as you can on every play, ultimately to the end of scoring points. This should be done with an estimated expected value computation.

The quality of your defense DOES figure into that expected value. However, I think most "Smash mouth" teams have it backwards. If your defense is steller, then going three and out hurts your team less. You can, therefore, afford to be MORE aggressive on offense. Conversely, if your defense stinks, you should try to avoid taking high risk shots that might lead to turnovers and/or three and outs.

I think that's pretty much on target, Mr. mcan. I wish I could find the research that I conducted on the subject of scoring in the NFL. I posted it some time back, but the search function has successfully challenged my Click Q. Nevertheless, it was darn interesting (at least, to me) and, basically, indicated that the team that scores the first touchdown in an NFL game has a very high likelihood of winning that game. It all came down to Yards Per Play - either via the pass or the rush. The statistics were very clear that teams with a focus on generating a high average in the Yards Per Play category tend to both score first and win their games.

I mention this because (although the old adage; Defense Wins Championships may well be true) defensive-leaning coaches tend to field conservative offenses. Surprisingly, and based on history, records, and every imaginable titty graph known to man, that approach actually doesn't seem to translate into wins in this league, however. According to the statistics, it's very difficult to come back from a deficit in the NFL. Therefore, my philosophy is "go deep."

FAX

headsnap

08-04-2008, 07:41 PM

No, not one bit, you should be trying to score every time you have the ball. The only exception may be when you're trying to run out the clock at the end of a game.
or in Hermy's case...

the end of the half! :banghead:

Rausch

08-04-2008, 07:43 PM

I mention this because (although the old adage; Defense Wins Championships may well be true) defensive-leaning coaches tend to field conservative offenses. Surprisingly, and based on history, records, and every imaginable titty graph known to man, that approach actually doesn't seem to translate into wins in this league, however. According to the statistics, it's very difficult to come back from a deficit in the NFL. Therefore, my philosophy is "go deep."

FAX

Exactly.

I would think a good defense would push you to go for it on 4th and short on the opponent's 40, take extra shots down the field, run a trick play here and there, etc. A great defense should give you the wiggle room to go for blood on 0.

Unfortunately we didn't see a lot of that around here...

Bugeater

08-04-2008, 07:45 PM

I think that's pretty much on target, Mr. mcan. I wish I could find the research that I conducted on the subject of scoring in the NFL. I posted it some time back, but the search function has successfully challenged my Click Q.

FAX

Is this what you're looking for?

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165489

FAX

08-04-2008, 07:47 PM

Is this what you're looking for?

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165489

Yes, Mr. GoBo, it is. How did you find that?

FAX

Bugeater

08-04-2008, 07:49 PM

Yes, Mr. GoBo, it is. How did you find that?

FAX

You can access a list of all the threads you started from your profile under "statistics".

FAX

08-04-2008, 07:52 PM

You can access a list of all the threads you started from your profile under "statistics".

Ah. I should have thought of that. I did a search using the term, "titty graph" which sent me to Google and there were a lot of results, but I couldn't find the right thread. Thanks for finding it for me. Prop things to you and yours. Much appreciated. Although I'm surprised this wasn't in the Hall of Classics.

FAX

Tribal Warfare

08-04-2008, 07:57 PM

Depends on which side your talking about the oppositions mindset, our the team your coaching mindset.

It wouldn't for me I'd want to destroy the opposition on both sides of the ball. Hence "Scoreboard Bitch"

Mecca

08-04-2008, 08:49 PM

Let me ask you guys this, the ones that actually play NCAA or Madden, if you're winning 14-3 do you let up...I know I certainly don't.

DeezNutz

08-04-2008, 08:52 PM

Let me ask you guys this, the ones that actually play NCAA or Madden, if you're winning 14-3 do you let up...I know I certainly don't.

WTF? Come on, dude. I also don't punt. Ever. Cause **** them, you know.

Rain Man

08-04-2008, 10:00 PM

Let me ask you guys this, the ones that actually play NCAA or Madden, if you're winning 14-3 do you let up...I know I certainly don't.

Do the other teams stop trading with you and call you a jerk in their little news stories?

Programmer

08-04-2008, 10:12 PM

I don't understand the argument that a good defense would make you more conservative, i.e., run the ball more and chew up the clock. All that means is that everyone scores less, which means that one mistake by your defense can cost you the game.

If your defense is really good, then it should make you go with a more dynamic offense, because you can tolerate a higher risk factor. If something goes wrong, your defense can limit the damage. Example: it's 3rd and 2 and you're on your own 18 yard line. If your defense is good, it should allow you to try something riskier (with a higher potential payoff) because if you have to punt your defense is more likely to hold. It shouldn't make you more conservative.

Oh my god. I think I just figured out why Marty never won a Super Bowl.

RM is right. With the exception of his last comment. Marty didn't win the SB because when the chips were on the line he lost his competitive edge. During the regular season he was aggressive on offense and defense. In the playoffs he reverted to play not to lose (like Hermit does). The problem with that mentality is that you only score enough to win the game as long as it isn't more than 21 points, we all know that is Arena Football League.

The concept I 'd like to see the Chiefs run is to score every time they get their hands on the ball and the defense needs to stop the opposition every time they have the ball.

77-0 is not a score that I would have a problem with. I would have a problem with a string of scores that are 14-17 losses, or scores within a TD or a FG. Any win would be good, but a 17-14 win is something that I don't think we ever need to see.

Even with all the new talent on the Chiefs team I do not have a good feeling about the upcoming season. I hope we do better but a repeat record is not out of the question.

Craqhead

08-04-2008, 10:17 PM

yup... if you have a good defense, you dont have too score every offensive possesion

case in point the Dicky V years...

Zouk

08-04-2008, 11:08 PM

Turnover margin is the elephant in the room. It's still the 2nd best statistical predictor of victory in NFL (# of rushing attempts is first - and that's more a result of winning than a cause of it).

Every week teams win in the NFL by simply making fewer mistakes. Look at the teams without a Manning or Brady that have made it to the Super Bowl over the last 10 years. You will find lots of conservative offense and winning with turnover margin, defense, and special teams.

Last year the 5 teams with the fewest interceptions all made the playoffs (Jax, TB, NE, Wash, Sea).

But 2 of the top 5 teams in terms of passing yards did not make the playoffs (NE, GB, NO, Dallas, Ariz).

FAX

08-04-2008, 11:13 PM

Just as you mentioned in reference to rushing yardage, Mr. Zouk, passing yards can be very misleading and, obviously, the result of trailing in games. It would be somewhat silly to make the case that a team with lots of passing yards has a better shot at making the playoffs, don't you agree?

FAX

Zouk

08-04-2008, 11:36 PM

Just as you mentioned in reference to rushing yardage, Mr. Zouk, passing yards can be very misleading and, obviously, the result of trailing in games. It would be somewhat silly to make the case that a team with lots of passing yards has a better shot at making the playoffs, don't you agree?

FAX

Yes - maybe so. But what stat is better? How about yards per play?

Of the top 4 teams by yards per play, 3 made the playoffs (NE, GB, Dal, Den)

4 teams tied for 5th in yards per play (Indy, Cle, Jax, Minn), 2 of these made the playoffs. So 5 of the top 8 teams in yards per play made the playoffs - only slightly more than half.

Not screwing up still outperformed productive offense.

Consistent1

08-05-2008, 02:05 AM

A team like Dallas is going to have this year is going to try to shut you out, and still score 40. Just like New England did for most of last year. A better D that is not on the field as much only gets better. You see the TD's getting racked up and it fires you up IMO.

PhillyChiefFan

08-05-2008, 05:26 AM

yes

CoMoChief

08-05-2008, 06:32 AM

The point offensively is simple.

Score touchdowns. If you have a good defense it doesn't matter how fast or slow it takes you to score one.

If you keep teams from scoring and you keep scoring on the other end, the margin between you and the opponent grows and grows. New England knows this.