Only TWO games since Kareem left!!

[UChieffyBugger]

Has a Chiefs running back rushed for a hundred yards in a game. Sunday's 145 by Damien was the first since his 103 at Seattle last season. Honestly I know Andy hates running the ball but that stat is utterly pathetic tbh. I think finally replacing Kareem's production is vital for this team moving forward so we can take the pressure off of Pat, give opposing defenses something else to worry about and also compete for time of possesion. We all saw how weak against the run the Pats were on Sunday and what a good running game can do...so I hope Veach has plans to land a quality RB In the offseason. Most teams have their number one back so the draft could be kind to us tbh with Taylor, Swift, Harris, Dobbins, Ettien etc all there to be had.

[dlphg9]

Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger

WRONG AGAIN!!...i didn't say anything about "100 yard rushing games"...I said "IT WAS ONLY THE SECOND TIME THAT A RB HAS RUSHED FOR A 100 YARDS"... so if you're gonna talk trash, at least get your facts right. Your last point is complete garbage as well. " running backs don't matter"..oh really? So why did Hyde, Mack and Jones kill us at arrowhead then? Is it just a "coincidence"? Smh.

You really are a complete moron. It's not even worth the effort to argue with you. So im not gonna waste my time with your illiterate ass.

[UChieffyBugger]

Originally Posted by dlphg9

You really are a complete moron. It's not even worth the effort to argue with you. So im not gonna waste my time with your illiterate ass.

Lol YEP..RUN OFF LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE AFTER LOOKING LIKE A COMPLETE FOOL AFTER I SHUT DOWN YOUR STUPID, DELUSIONAL ARGUMENTS .

[Chargem]

Who cares if its one RB getting 100+ yards or the team getting 100+ yards as a unit? Does it make any difference?

[Bump]

Originally Posted by Chargem

Who cares if its one RB getting 100+ yards or the team getting 100+ yards as a unit? Does it make any difference?

ya it definitely makes a difference having a stud RB that makes big plays regularly

[UChieffyBugger]

Originally Posted by Chargem

Who cares if its one RB getting 100+ yards or the team getting 100+ yards as a unit? Does it make any difference?

Yes because when you have a stud RB who can get you 100 yards it means the defense has to plan for him which opens up other areas for Pat. It also would allow us to hold the ball for longer and wear out the opposition.

[Chargem]

Originally Posted by Bump

ya it definitely makes a difference having a stud RB that makes big plays regularly

Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger

Yes because when you have a stud RB who can get you 100 yards it means the defense has to plan for him which opens up other areas for Pat. It also would allow us to hold the ball for longer and wear out the opposition.

I understand the argument for having an effective running game, but there is literally no difference between having one guy getting 100 yards and two guys getting 50 each. If the defense doesn't plan for two no name guys and they get easy yards because of it, how is that not a win? You guys are literally forgetting the point of the offense is to score points.

Probably everyone on the whole damn forum would probably be happy with a better running back. The only difference is some people understand that with limited resources you can't be amazing everywhere, and having a good running back doesn't move the needle enough to make heavy investment in one worthwhile.

For every example you can give me of a runningback investment paying off, I can give you several where it hasn't. From the Steelers or Chargers not losing a step in their run game despite losing their featured back, to Lindsay in Denver proving that a UFA can get the job done.

Sony Michel and Rashad Penny also got mentioned in this thread, and those are shitty examples as well - both are first round picks and both are in committee systems, Penny is basically a back up to Carson not even a committee really.

Not to mention clearly wasted picks like Fournette.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by Bump

ya it definitely makes a difference having a stud RB that makes big plays regularly

Well, maybe Reid should run the ball more.

Hunt didn't do shit last year during that stretch of games where Reid forgot to call run plays, ya know??

[UChieffyBugger]

Originally Posted by Chargem

I understand the argument for having an effective running game, but there is literally no difference between having one guy getting 100 yards and two guys getting 50 each. If the defense doesn't plan for two no name guys and they get easy yards because of it, how is that not a win? You guys are literally forgetting the point of the offense is to score points.

Probably everyone on the whole damn forum would probably be happy with a better running back. The only difference is some people understand that with limited resources you can't be amazing everywhere, and having a good running back doesn't move the needle enough to make heavy investment in one worthwhile.

For every example you can give me of a runningback investment paying off, I can give you several where it hasn't. From the Steelers or Chargers not losing a step in their run game despite losing their featured back, to Lindsay in Denver proving that a UFA can get the job done.

Sony Michel and Rashad Penny also got mentioned in this thread, and those are shitty examples as well - both are first round picks and both are in committee systems, Penny is basically a back up to Carson not even a committee really.

Not to mention clearly wasted picks like Fournette.

Michel was huge for the Pats in the playoofs last year..so you're wrong there. Also Mccafrey, Cook, Barkley, Zeke etc are all first and second round picks and worth every penny. I also disagree about the Steelers and Bolts as this year both took a step back but surprise surprise as soon as Gordon starta playing well the Bolts start winning....

Your point about "two backs" is also not proving to be true In KC. We have four backs on the roster and our run game stinks..this is why it's time to cut the BS and get a quality back In the next draft imo.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger

Ravens are paying Ingram big money, Sony Michel WAS A FIRST ROUND pick, Rashard Penny...FIRST ROUND PICK. Too many idiots are buying into this foolish notion that "you can play any old RB and get the job done" and that's simply BS!!. We've got three guys on our roster and our running game has been woeful all year...FACT.

It's because the OLINE has AIDS - FACT!

Better Oline = better production - FACT!

More 21 and 12 personnel packages would also help - FACT!

Andy Reid often treats the run game as an afterthought, or forgets about it entirely - FACT!

UL'ilChieffyBurger is too ****ing stupid to understand what any of that means - FACT!

[UChieffyBugger]

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

It's because the OLINE has AIDS - FACT!

Better Oline = better production - FACT!

More 21 and 12 personnel packages would also help - FACT!

Andy Reid often treats the run game as an afterthought, or forgets about it entirely - FACT!

UL'ilChieffyBurger is too ****ing stupid to understand what any of that means - FACT!

Lol AND JUST LIKE CLOCKWORK THE BIGGEST DUNCE ON THE FORUM COMES FLYING IN TO HAVE A CRY..WHAT A SURPRISE ...most of the o-line Kareem had are still there but of course this idiot is a sheep so he spews the same bs other idiots do and blames the line for every problem known to man....IT'S STUPID.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by ThyKingdomCome15

Should have never cut Kareem. It cost us the Super Bowl.

So you are saying Hunt would have had that 4th TD that Williams wasn't able to get on the overthrow?

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger

Lol YEP..RUN OFF LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE AFTER LOOKING LIKE A COMPLETE FOOL AFTER I SHUT DOWN YOUR STUPID, DELUSIONAL ARGUMENTS .

dude, you just look at a basic stat-line and make all your judgements right there, without any other considerations.

You like seeing ONE back with 100 plus yards on the page.

You think that's worth a #1 pick, and if we just had ONE back that was running for 100 plus yards every game we'd be better.

Never mind that we've had a ton of offensive line injuries so the run blocking has been pretty lousy.

Never mind that Andy Reid, since Mahomes doesn't run the ball very often at all. Even when Hunt was in there, his carries dropped dramatically. ONE 100 yard game in his last 16 games. So in fact, the TWO since he's been gone would be an improvement.

Never mind that having 2 runners with 50 plus yards is just as good, and in some ways can actually be better, as the different styles and skillsets of the guys involved can stress a defense in different ways.

But Sony Michel!!!
Yeah, but James White.

See what I mean? Nah, you don't. See, this is an example of a nation-wide problem we have right now in that people just come to an opinion completely devoid of factual evidence and then just dig in. No matter how many facts that contradict them, they just dig right in and believe what they want to believe regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

It's stupid.

[UChieffyBugger]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

dude, you just look at a basic stat-line and make all your judgements right there, without any other considerations.

You like seeing ONE back with 100 plus yards on the page.

You think that's worth a #1 pick, and if we just had ONE back that was running for 100 plus yards every game we'd be better.

Never mind that we've had a ton of offensive line injuries so the run blocking has been pretty lousy.

Never mind that Andy Reid, since Mahomes doesn't run the ball very often at all. Even when Hunt was in there, his carries dropped dramatically. ONE 100 yard game in his last 16 games. So in fact, the TWO since he's been gone would be an improvement.

Never mind that having 2 runners with 50 plus yards is just as good, and in some ways can actually be better, as the different styles and skillsets of the guys involved can stress a defense in different ways.

But Sony Michel!!!
Yeah, but James White.

See what I mean? Nah, you don't. See, this is an example of a nation-wide problem we have right now in that people just come to an opinion completely devoid of factual evidence and then just dig in. No matter how many facts that contradict them, they just dig right in and believe what they want to believe regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

It's stupid.

Lol oh look, it's the guy who got his panties in a twist last year on the draft forum because I insisted that we should consider drafting a quality RB . And excuse me where are these two magical rb's that can run 50 yards each per game? Because they don't appear to be on this roster. Secondly if your notion was true why do dallas, packers, saints, ravens, rams, pats etc all have one main three down back? And please don't embarrass yourself by mentioning "White" again because anyone with a brain knows all he does is catch the ball out of the backfield whilst Michel does ALL ground running.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

dude, you just look at a basic stat-line and make all your judgements right there, without any other considerations.

You like seeing ONE back with 100 plus yards on the page.

You think that's worth a #1 pick, and if we just had ONE back that was running for 100 plus yards every game we'd be better.

Never mind that we've had a ton of offensive line injuries so the run blocking has been pretty lousy.

Never mind that Andy Reid, since Mahomes doesn't run the ball very often at all. Even when Hunt was in there, his carries dropped dramatically. ONE 100 yard game in his last 16 games. So in fact, the TWO since he's been gone would be an improvement.

Never mind that having 2 runners with 50 plus yards is just as good, and in some ways can actually be better, as the different styles and skillsets of the guys involved can stress a defense in different ways.

But Sony Michel!!!
Yeah, but James White.

See what I mean? Nah, you don't. See, this is an example of a nation-wide problem we have right now in that people just come to an opinion completely devoid of factual evidence and then just dig in. No matter how many facts that contradict them, they just dig right in and believe what they want to believe regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

It's stupid.

I honestly don't understand how he still had thread starting privileges.

[Chargem]

Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger

Michel was huge for the Pats in the playoofs last year.. so you're wrong there.

So Damien was huge in the play offs for the Chiefs - so that means we are fine by that logic.

Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger

Also Mccafrey, Cook, Barkley, Zeke etc are all first and second round picks and worth every penny.

How many super bowl rings do those guys have? How many play off appearances? Do you think the Panthers, Vikings, Giants or Cowboys offense is better than the Chiefs? If the Chiefs have a better offense, why would they try and change to emulate a worse offense?

Barkley is also a classic example of why you don't waste resources on a running back. Is he an incredibly talented running back? Sure. Has his performance managed to lift the Giants offense above garbage? No. Then was he worth it?

Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger

I also disagree about the Steelers and Bolts as this year both took a step back but surprise surprise as soon as Gordon starta playing well the Bolts start winning....

This is where you don't do yourself any favours. The Steelers and Bolts ahve taken a step back this year in their run game? By what metric? Benny Snell, the 4th round pick, is averaging 4.2 yards a carry?

And yet more un-researched non-sense, the Bolts are winning since Gordon started playing? they are 2-3 since he came back, and one of those 2 wins they had a team total of 36 rushing yards. Gordon got 31 yards on 8 attempts against the Bears. Clearly an impact player?

Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger

Your point about "two backs" is also not proving to be true In KC. We have four backs on the roster and our run game stinks..this is why it's time to cut the BS and get a quality back In the next draft imo.

But does it stink? They don't have many 100 yard games from a single back, but again as has already been pointed out this is a dumb metric. The Chiefs are choosing to pass the ball more than run, and also to share carries between backs. You're not even considering efficiency when running, which is literally the only thing that matters in my opinion.

You sound like you would be happier if the Chiefs scored 20 points a game but had a single running back get 100+ yards, rather than have the Chiefs score 30 points but have two running backs get like 30 yards each.