Presumptive MVP!
[Reply]

That's kinda what he said but in the context of the conversation that wasn't really what he meant.

We all know that Indy's going into a deep Cover 2 shell and is going to force Mahomes to try to beat them underneath. If they do that, Mahomes can't be trying to get too aggressive and throw into coverage too often.

He needs to realize what the Colts are specifically trying to take away and the price they're willing to pay to do so. They're going to leave him a shitload of room underneath and he needs to be willing to throw those passes when they're easy.

It sure would be nice if Kareem Hunt wasn't a stupid motherfucker. There was a reason teams entered this season playing so much single-high against us and Mahomes killed them with it. Hunt demanded attention in the box and opened up some space deep for Mahomes.

Let's be honest with ourselves here fellas - Mahomes threw for 300 yards in 9 of 11 games with Hunt and in only 1 of 5 without him (though admittedly, it's an arbitrary cutoff that he got awfully close to a few other times). He threw for 330 YPG w/ him and 293 w/o him. He threw 3.4 TDs/gm with him and 2.6 TDs/gm without him. Granted, Watkins went down around the same time but Hunt did a lot to keep defenses honest that Williams just doesn't do.

I mean even his post-Hunt numbers are MVP caliber but they're more 4,700 and 42 scores sort of great, not historically unfathomable.

Carter's saying that Mahomes needs to realize that and not just go for kill shots every time. This offense without Hunt (and with a likely hobbled Watkins) isn't the same Veyron it was earlier in the season. It may still be a Ferrari, but it's not the marvel the Bugatti was. It's a fair statement but not something I'm actually worried Mahomes will struggle with. If the Colts aren't giving him shots downfield, he'll lean heavily on Kelce up them middle and I think Andy will do some things to get Hill running routes from the slot and working underneath.

Mahomes will be fine.
[Reply]

Pat needs to do what the Colts want to do with him. Keep the Indy offense off the field with long extended drives for TDs.
[Reply]

I still don't quite understand this approach.

Number of possessions cuts both ways. Every long, extended drive Mahomes leads serves to reduce the number of drives HE'LL get as well. And every long, extended drive from the Colts just means fewer bites at the apple they'll get.

I mean I guess it's similar to just trying to clutch and grab your way through a boxing match against a superior opponent then hoping you land some knockout shot in the 12th round, but I don't think the Colts need to really do that. They aren't some lightweight squad that doesn't deserve to be in the post-season. That's a genuinely good team.

Both squads need to just do what they do best on offense. The Colts need to stay head of the sticks and set up those short 3rd downs that Luck is such a surgeon with. The Chiefs need to be aggressive and opportunistic while finding ways to create space for their playmakers.

And in the 4th quarter, game situation will dictate where you go from there.
[Reply]

Yeah if these trends continue he’ll top all of them
[Reply]

I've been kinda confused about this ever since the notion came up earlier in the year ... our opponents talking about keeping the enemy offense off the field, etc. (Just like they used to talk about Brady or Rogers or Montana.)

I'm not sure there's a "right" answer, to be honest. You score when you can. Period. If that means a 12-play drive, fine. TOP is in your favor. If it means a 1-play drive, fine. Scoreboard is in your favor. The rule changes have altered the benefits of that concept a bit, however.

It might be different if you had no real confidence in your offense to be effective in a 2- or 4-minute situation. But man ... you don't take the points back when you score by accident while trying to slow down the game. No. You score when the opportunity presents itself ... because, in the Great Game, those opportunities are rare.

To me, it all boils down to what any particular team does well, how they're built, and what the situation is.

If we're playing 7 on 7, I'm going with Mahomes over Luck every time at this point. That leaves the rest of the question to be answered by the D and STs.

As for the Colts "recommended game plan", what we're seeing in the media is recency bias at its most pure. The last team to dominate their opponent is always the cat's meow. Every week. Mahomes, Tyreek, Kelce (and, hopefully, Sammy "Feets" Watkins) are dogs.

FAX
[Reply]

It makes sense only in the scenario where you're conceding that the opposing offense is demonstrably better than yours (and still only with a significant caveat that I'll get to).

Let's say it's a situation where my offense will score 2/3 of the time against a 'representative' average NFL defense and yours will score 1/2 the time. Over 12 possessions, I'm scoring 8 times, you're scoring 6. Somewhere in there you have to 'make up' 2 scores. Now if you bring that down to 8 possessions, my offense will score 5 times, yours will score 4. Now you only have to 'make up' 1 score. You've increased your odds and decreased your margin by 50% by limiting possessions.

But what that analysis so often fails to take into consideration is the respective defenses and the fact that both offenses AREN'T playing the same 'representative' average NFL defense. They're playing the other teams. So if you're the Colts, let's say that you'll concede the 2/3 vs. 1/2 offensive distinction against that represnetative squad (which isn't a given) - it's still irrelevant because the Chiefs offense is playing your defense and your offense is playing our defense. So whatever the 'representative' figure might be ceases to matter. The Colts have a better defense than we do so that gap closes to where it's probably something like 6/10 both ways.

So at that point it just doesn't matter how many possessions there are. What matters is execution. And you're going to execute better on the things you do well. So as an offense, just go out there and do what you do well. Stop trying to change things up and get out of your comfort zone. Go play your style and try to simply play it better than the opponent does.
[Reply]

That's a good way of explaining it, and I agree. (Most especially with the bolded chunk.)

If the Colts think they can run the ball, they'll try to prove it (and they probably will). But, if they accidentally rip off a 70-yarder for a TD, are they going to ask the refs for a do-over because they surrendered some clock? I think not.

The entire question is about who does what better in which situations. That's what has always been about and that fact is magnified on offense given the rule changes we've seen. A defense can give up 50 points, but make key plays in critical situations that turn a game (see the Rams). STs can flip a field or put up points that change a gameplan you've worked on all week long.

Although those are factors in almost every game, I think this particular issue is mainly about O vs O (as you rightly point out). However, the fact is that, if every team could dominate TOP, every team would. In the end, possessions are only important if you do something with them.

A good example is this; everybody under the NFL sun was talking about how the Ravens would be effective against the Chargers due to their killer run game and their ability to limit Rivers' possessions. Turnovers killed that plan (well ... and some remarkably creative defensive scheming which I personally covet). We all know that every game turns on a few critical plays. Chiefs win when those plays happen in our favor when we have the ball. That's how we're built and that's what we'll live or die with.

FAX
[Reply]

positive vibes only


[Reply]

:-)
[Reply]

I think Watkins is more the issue than Hunt.

Hunt was a monster for sure, but the RB numbers just don't look any different with Williams. The WR sure look a lot worse though. Maybe that has to do with teams saying "yeah, let the RB's have theirs" because they aren't Hunt.

But I think there is also some credence to the actual teams and defenses we played in the games without Hunt.
[Reply]

:-)
[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

And now the reverse, please...

Face-Off!!!
[Reply]