Originally Posted by ThyKingdomCome15 (Post 15956741)

Lol, establishing the running game set up a number of those big pass play's. We even ran some RPO's and the D actually bit on the fake. So if you wanted to run more, you were right. If you wanted to pass more, you were also right. It takes a balanced attack to keep the defense honest. So don't knock the running game.

Originally Posted by Chris Meck (Post 15956720)

I don't think that study says exactly what you think it says, and it partially proves my point-success running the ball doesn't really matter all that much in relation to play-action passing. But you still have to do it some. You have to make the defense honor that fact that you MIGHT run the ball.

The study shows that teams that rarely ran the ball ( not at all in the previous 8-10 plays) were less successful in play-action passing.

So the 'never run the ball ever, just throw' crowd are missing the point too.

What that study is looking at is how effective running games are in relation to play-action passing, and how much do you have to run? The answers are: you don't have to be great at it, but you do have to do it enough to be a threat to do it.

That's totally in line with what I've been saying. Other people may have been wanting to go full on Barry Word style Martyball, but that's not me, unless you're talking about eating clock late in the game sitting on a large lead.

Originally Posted by St. Patty's Fire (Post 15956758)

Acting like power formations would neuter the offense’s ability is silly, but up Clays alley.

Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 15956754)

The main takeaway from the article is that neither frequency of running the ball nor effectiveness impact PA passing success which is absolutely what you claimed earlier. Its simply not true.

KC has had the most prolific offense in football for 3+ years while running it around 25-30% of the time.

The idea this needs to change is insane.

Originally Posted by Superturtle (Post 15956753)

Also wonder if Pat was on Cocaine last night. Dude was ****ing wired in compared to this last month of shit. Don't remember much if at all of those plays where he just holds the ball then does something really stupid in panic/desperation. Quick, accurate, and decisive.

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 15956776)

I've said it before and I'll say it again - there is almost no reason to ever run the ball on 1st down or 2nd and over 5. You are just giving away expected yards and points. Run the ball on those downs when you are up by multiple scores in the second half, yeah sure fine but early in the game pass every time in those situations.

Our short passing game keeps the defense more honest than running the ball up the middle.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 15956732)

Yeah, the Raiders were pretty hard-headed.

They were still playing a lot of Cover 3 (the original "Mahomes Killer") and there's a that cover 3 can do to mess up those deep passes as well. But they were playing a cover 3 with Jonathan Abram who...sucks.

That said, the confidence that Mahomes was playing with last night was completely unlike anything we've seen out of him since the Ravens game. He was back to his old self.

So while the Raiders defense in some ways made things easier, the Titans defense wasn't exactly playing well out there, Mahomes was just missing. He was in a slump. He appears on his way to pulling out of it.

No, the answer is not running the ball 30 times a game. The Chiefs used the passing game to establish a lead and then took the air out of the ball late. They worked the underneath routes (those short crossers finally came back out again) to draw the safeties down and made the Raiders pay anytime the tried to cheat on them.

They handed the ball to the RB 20 times on the day (for the record, FAR too many of those were off tackle right on 1st down), 8 of those came after they'd established a double digit lead late in the 3rd and into the 4th.

It was EXACTLY how they need to operate moving forward. They're not a power running team with an elite quarterback. They shouldn't try to be. They're an elite passing offense with the ability to use their interior line to win situational reps. Their quarterback hit the first slump of his career and battled his way out the other side.

This is what they do and this is what they should be. Anyone trying to claim some level of vindication for a gameplan that featured 20 handoffs and 5 touchdown passes as proof that running the football was how the Chiefs needed to win simply wasn't paying attention.

Originally Posted by St. Patty's Fire (Post 15956758)

Still wanna start slowly working in more power run game concepts into the offense instead of running outside zone with offensive lineman who are objectively a better fit for a power run game. Acting like power formations would neuter the offense’s ability is silly, but up Clays alley.

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties (Post 15956772)

rUn ThE bALl

3 3:38 3-2 LVR 49 Patrick Mahomes pass complete deep left to Tyreek Hill for 32 yards

4 9:09 3-2 KAN 45 Patrick Mahomes pass complete short middle to Travis Kelce for 30 yards

62 yards on two plays that led to touchdowns where Chief fan wanted buttsex

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief (Post 15956800)

This is what we should have been doing all year. On those plays they had the safeties down and stacked the box. We still need to run the ball against 6 in the box or have the short passes to the RB and Kelce we did last night.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 15956802)

If Hardman did nothing but run short crossers for the rest of the year, he'd provide plenty of value.

Teams can/will counter Kelce by bracketing him. You can do that and still maintain a little bit of a 2 high look. But you can't do that if you also have to account for Hardman streaking over the middle because he'll manage to lose anyone that's trying to hang with him and if you have him going the opposite direction of Kelce, you force a decision point for that safety looking to bracket Kelce.

It won't work every time, but it'll work plenty often and if Hardman gets that ball in full stride, he's going to have an angle on anyone trying to cover him.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 15956802)

If Hardman did nothing but run short crossers for the rest of the year, he'd provide plenty of value.

Teams can/will counter Kelce by bracketing him. You can do that and still maintain a little bit of a 2 high look. But you can't do that if you also have to account for Hardman streaking over the middle because he'll manage to lose anyone that's trying to hang with him and if you have him going the opposite direction of Kelce, you force a decision point for that safety looking to bracket Kelce.

It won't work every time, but it'll work plenty often and if Hardman gets that ball in full stride, he's going to have an angle on anyone trying to cover him.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 15956794)

By the way - THIS is how the Chiefs will draw safeties down:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FENU_1AU...jpg&name=small

One catch all night made 15 yards downfield and he went for 120 yards.

Safeties play us 15-18 yards deep at the snap and are bailing immediately. You keep hitting Kelce underneath and they're going to stop doing that. You don't 'establish the run' - you establish Travis Kelce.

That's how you'll keep those deep shots open.

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 15956776)

I've said it before and I'll say it again - there is almost no reason to ever run the ball on 1st down or 2nd and over 5. You are just giving away expected yards and points. Run the ball on those downs when you are up by multiple scores in the second half, yeah sure fine but early in the game pass every time in those situations.

Our short passing game keeps the defense more honest than running the ball up the middle.

Originally Posted by morphius (Post 15956811)

I believe most teams have been dropping their LB's deep enough that the safeties don't need to come up.

Originally Posted by Red Dawg (Post 15956820)

Dynasty's are built on running the ball

Originally Posted by Pawnmower (Post 15956149)

the passes that worked early were play action

reid did a great psyche job because everyone thought we were gonna run

so those play actions , screens and short passes to the flat worked

then when they blitzed, we torched them

Originally Posted by Red Dawg (Post 15956820)

Get out with non sense. Dynasty's are built on running the ball and playing defense with your elite QB moving the chains when needed. Not to run it is not sustainable. No reason to run on early downs is a nut ball strategy.

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties (Post 15956212)

Don't need one. Our run pass ratio was the same it has been most of the year. You are too much of a dummy dum dum to realize it.

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 15956844)

Yup.

The TD to Pringle was an excellent example of the defense biting up hard on the play fake.

And he bit hard not because they "feared" the run, but because we had been taking the underneath stuff all night in all sorts of various forms.

Now, it's not any different than what the Chiefs have been doing all year. The difference is the Raiders defense didn't stay disciplined, which is required to for the "Mahomes Treatment" plan to work.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 15956824)

Like I said - keep sending Hardman on those short crossers and tell those LBs they get to try to hang with him. At that point the LBs will serve no purpose but to get in the way of the CB that's trying to run with him.