ChiefsPlanet - Chiefs Chiefs sticking with spread offense?

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

Chiefs sticking with spread offense? (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203950)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan (Post 5570973)

Then you really should pay closer attention at the clinics, or perhaps watch some of the Cards and Patriots film. I don't know which.

I hope your boss isn't reading this thread, because you may have just lost your job.

:popcorn:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan (Post 5570973)

Nah.
I'm sure my boss would be happy to know that I know more about it than what I found on wikipedia, or some guy's blog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sully (Post 5571000)

Nah.
I'm sure my boss would be happy to know that I know more about it than what I found on wikipedia, or some guy's blog.

ROFL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sully (Post 5571000)

Nah.
I'm sure my boss would be happy to know that I know more about it than what I found on wikipedia, or some guy's blog.

ROFL

Smack

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sully (Post 5571000)

Nah.
I'm sure my boss would be happy to know that I know more about it than what I found on wikipedia, or some guy's blog.

WINNER.ROFL

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 5570759)

The Chiefs were in many ways a spread team from 2001-2005, and they ran the ball fine for the most part (the problem I mentioned earlier in the thread being the exception). Beyond that, some would argue that the types of passes emphasized by spread routes are basically an extension of the running game - short passes geared towards giving receivers a chance at yards after the catch. As we saw a lot, you can also exploit aggresive defensive tendencies by using traps, draws and throwing in screen passes. What you can't do is power run, because you don't have the right personnel on the line (no TE or a pass-catching TE spread wide) and often no FB. And generally, the teams that run it go for athletic linemen over drive blockers, which exacerbates the problem.

In other words, you can run, you just have to go about it a little differently...

I agree with this statement. Its all about exploiting mismatches. Especially with Gonzales the occassional spread play can improve our passing game. Gonzo was spread wide in Saunders' offense too. The biggest problem that we had with Saunders running the show is the offense often tried to get their yards in too big a chunks. I thought too often we went three and out. One of the keys in improving our defense is keeping them off the field by being able to sustain drives.

An NFL offense that can do many things well is going to be successful. The Cardinals last year were not successful when they couldn't run. The Chiefs will be the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sully (Post 5571000)

Nah.
I'm sure my boss would be happy to know that I know more about it than what I found on wikipedia, or some guy's blog.

LOL. ROFLROFL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sully (Post 5571000)

Nah.
I'm sure my boss would be happy to know that I know more about it than what I found on wikipedia, or some guy's blog.

:clap: Spread Rep

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan (Post 5570604)

No, but the Cards, Chiefs and Pats ran it as their primary passing offense.

I only watched the Cards in the playoffs because I don't watch FOX football, but they didn't run it as their base passing offense during the playoffs. They were running 3 and 4 WR out, but the offensive linemen weren't in the "spread".

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 5570759)

See that's NOT the spread. The linemen weren't at all in a spread formation in the base offense, despite how many WR's were on the field.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan (Post 5570924)

The fact that you don't agree about the Pats and Cards demonstrates your ignorance, not mine.

You really haven't given me any evidence or logic for what you think. That is probably because you have none of either on this subject.

It's not ignorance at all.

His definition of the spread offense and yours are completely different. I happen to agree with him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5572764)

See that's NOT the spread. The linemen weren't at all in a spread formation in the base offense, despite how many WR's were on the field.

I think "spread" has been bastardized to mean more than the OL formation.

If you have at least 3 WR's and are in the shotgun people automatically assume its the spread offense ROFL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2 (Post 5572799)

I think "spread" has been bastardized to mean more than the OL formation.

That's been my exact point all along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5572764)

See that's NOT the spread. The linemen weren't at all in a spread formation in the base offense, despite how many WR's were on the field.

That might be why I said "in many ways a spread team" rather than "were a spread team".

I would add that I'd be wary of making sweeping generalizations. Not every iteration of the spread features 3-foot or wider splits and not every iteration has their linemen in two-point stances.

All-in-all, this looks to me like a pretty silly exercise in philosophical masturbation.