I would not have expected that. Very interesting.
[Reply]

Curious about time of possession given that our run game seems super heavy this year
[Reply]

It's funny to me to see people describe this year's offense as a "poverty" offense. Highest success rate in the league and one of the best 3rd down percentages in recent memory. The numbers are only going to get better with Hopkins on board.

People seem to confuse "not explosive" with "not good."
[Reply]

Best 3rd down offense in the NFL in 13 years.
[Reply]

I think most people are thinking about pre-DHop when they say that. It's about context. Pat had more INTs than TDs for much of the season until very recently. His PR in 4-5 games was below 90.0. Before the LVR game he went two straight games without a TD pass, and it was late Sept. the last time he threw 2 TDs in a game.

In short, the Chiefs offense was very one-dimensional. Yes, they found a way to be efficient enough to win games, but let's be honest, against who? How many toothless teams did we play over the first 9 weeks? A lot.

And just as one example, KC only managed to put 26 pts on a terrible NOR team. TB dropped 51 on the same team.

But yeah, the offense should be more explosive with DHop and the numbers will start to look better. If we get JJSS or Hollywood or even PAcheco back soon, that should give us a good bump as well, and no one will remember how KC's offense struggled to put away bad teams early in the season.
[Reply]

Good post!
[Reply]

Uhhhh scoring 30 PPG like in 22 is a HUGE difference than 24 or 25 PPG. 6 points a game in scoring is a chasm. Now giving up 5 PPG less on defense is a nice. I'm not seeing the similarly between this year and 22. 5 to 6 points a game is CHASM.
[Reply]

Not really. Much better defense than in 22. Infinitely better, but the offense isn't near as potent scoring. 5 PPG isn't a minor variation.
[Reply]

Thanks. I think it’s pretty interesting to look at how similar the team has been across the years. Obviously there are some stark differences but by and large the #s are close.
[Reply]