Because of all the interest in this thread, I've place all of the video content of Patrick Mahomes II's college career, and draft day goodness into a single post that can be found here. Enjoy! [Reply]
You run the ball so that defenses aren't in all out rush the passer every down with zero discipline to respecting the prospect of a running back having the ball.
If a defense can literally pin it's ears back on every single rush your quarterback will have almost no deep drops and downfield progression plays that take time to develop don't get the time to. In the end the QB gets hurt or ball gets knocked out or intercepted.
When a defense HAS to engage the offensive line to plug gaps for a perceived run threat, thats 2-3 fewer players on their way to Patrick Mahomes.
We'd like to keep it that way I think. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Kman34:
Patrick’s arm gets tired and that’s when we run..
I just want to point out how he mentioned pitching in baseball you throw 80-100 pitches and in football it’s 30-50 in a game. He said he’s never worried about his arm getting tired. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
I think some defenses and DCs these days are too creative and shape-shifting to really believe that the threat of a running game is worthless.
Even if you want to believe that a team will play perpetually light boxes and allow you to gash them for 6yds a clip, those DCs are human and eventually they wear down and get frustrated by giving up those easy gains.
I genuinely think our offensive output last season was as good or better than in the Tyreek Hill days in large part because of Pachecho and the run game. We had been so, so below average with Clyde in prior seasons that it was comically bad. Just having someone even average (or above) allowed us to unlock a complete offense that clearly paid dividends when we needed it in the postseason.
Originally Posted by IA_Chiefs_fan:
It feels so good to be able to talk shit about QB's that we would have loved to have on our team in years past! We're blessed!!
Originally Posted by RunKC:
My 7 year old son is really into flag football. His entire team shows up early to try to do "the Mahomes throws"
They all want to play short stop in baseball not even bc they like it. They want to learn to throw like Patrick bc they saw he played baseball first and their football coach doesn't know how to teach them to throw that way.
Patrick is changing everything.
This is happening everywhere. Those kids are growing up Mahomes fans even though they are not in the KC area.
Originally Posted by Chieftain:
His dad's genes help a lot. The guy recovers from injuries faster than most. It's unusual in modern sports.
Sure genetics plays a role but you also have Jackson with those same genetics. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
Change takes time. Look at how many 3s basketball teams took 25 years ago compared to now. They just didn't know any better and had someone came out years ago shooting as many 3s as they do now simple minded fans and owners would revolt.
I dont think your analogy works here. You're suggesting we should never run the football. But teams in the NBA still shoot 2's. Obviously they shoot more 3's than they ever have, but they still shoot 2's because its still an effective method of scoring. Similarly, running the ball is still effective. It shouldn't ever be what an NFL offense relies on, but its still effective in the right situations. Just because Mahomes is otherworldly on guaranteed passing downs doesn't necessarily mean we should increase that sample size. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz:
I dont think your analogy works here. You're suggesting we should never run the football. But teams in the NBA still shoot 2's. Obviously they shoot more 3's than they ever have, but they still shoot 2's because its still an effective method of scoring. Similarly, running the ball is still effective. It shouldn't ever be what an NFL offense relies on, but its still effective in the right situations. Just because Mahomes is otherworldly on guaranteed passing downs doesn't necessarily mean we should increase that sample size.
Nope. I'm suggesting never running the football on 1st and 10 or 2nd and 10 or those types of downs 5 yards+. Perhaps the sweet spot is 90/10 but this idea that you have to run the ball to make the defense honest is vastly overrated. Even just running 5-10% of the time does virtually the same as running it 40% of the time. THROW THE FUCKING ROCK.
IMO Andy actually throws TOO much on 3rd and short and 4th and short. It's why we were the worst team in football last year on 3rd and short. We should be dialing up a ton of QB sneaks WITH PATRICK MAHOMES on the field and using some semblance of a power running scheme in these situations and then yes also passing quite a bit as well. Then on 2nd and 1 you can REALLY fuck with teams if you run the ball more because you can do some big time play actions to throw absolute bombs but we like to do alot of gadget/finesse stuff in these situations rather than attack. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz:
I dont think your analogy works here. You're suggesting we should never run the football. But teams in the NBA still shoot 2's. Obviously they shoot more 3's than they ever have, but they still shoot 2's because its still an effective method of scoring. Similarly, running the ball is still effective. It shouldn't ever be what an NFL offense relies on, but its still effective in the right situations. Just because Mahomes is otherworldly on guaranteed passing downs doesn't necessarily mean we should increase that sample size.
It actually does. If you look at how Patrick Mahomes performs EVEN ON 3rd and 10+ where the defense with 100% certainty know you are passing. EVEN THEN Patrick Mahomes is waaaay more efficient than running the ball EVEN WHEN running the ball has the element of surprise going for it. It's just that for decades running the ball has been important so it's so difficult for football culture to evolve fast enough.
The rules, the athletes, and the game how it is played now all favor passing the ball to a point where it is so much more important than running it. It's one of the reasons GM's are finally getting smart and not paying RBs. [Reply]
I am also of the mindset that we don’t need to run as much as we do but I also accept that with better RB play it’s not as annoying or detrimental and has its legitimate uses. The problem with running the ball post Hunt and pre Pacheco (Williams was okay) was that in those seasons not only was there almost no threat of even a 10 yard gain, the running game was just so bad that we really would have been better off never running at all. That’s not true at this point it would seem. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
Look, nobody is saying that Mahomes isn't the reason we win. But as we've seen, teams are willing to drop 7 and 8. Even the great one struggles sometimes with that. The best way to keep a defense honest is to force them to play straight up, and honor their run fits. We have a back we can do that with, and might have another. Make them pay for that shit. Don't let the pass rush just tee off on Mahomes.
It's still football, even now. 'establish the run'? If by that, you mean 'show them you can, and you will ' enough to make them play straight up, then yeah, you need to. If you mean we should run it 30 times a game, then no, absolutely not.
A huge reason Cinci caught is in the AFC Championship the year before is teams had taken away our vertical game and we refused to run the ball, throw quickly to guys open.
This last offseason Andy fully completed the transition from a hybrid Spread/WCO to a new age West Coast Offense.
Teams have to accept we are getting easy yards down after down. If they decide to stop getting punched in the face with Pacheco running 7 yards or Moore for 8 yards then Mahomes is going to go back to doing what he loves: bombs away and then its even WORSE for them. [Reply]
