Is it the line, or the running back?

[Chris Meck]

I just thought since it comes up in every single thread, maybe we could talk about in one continuous conversation.

I think we'd all be in agreement that we need to be more consistent in the running game.

Some of us think the problem is lack of a talented enough RB to be a 'feature back'.

Some of us think that the biggest problem is that our interior offensive line is lousy, and when coupled with losing Fisher for half a season, was the biggest reason we were unable to run the ball.

Personally, I fall mostly in the second camp. I have no illusions that Damien Williams is a top 5 back; but I think with decent line play (such as we got once Fisher was back in the flow and Wisniewski took over LG) he can be effective when healthy. The problem is, he's never made a full season healthy; so I agree with taking a mid-round RB to provide competition and hopefully upgrade.

I think the interior offensive line is #2 on my priority list to upgrade, just after CB where we are dangerously thin. I don't believe that any RB upgrade will pay dividends without upgrading from OG-OG.

It's a chicken-and-the-egg argument really, but where do you come down?

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

We clearly miss Morse, whom Chief Fan hated, oddly enough.

I think only KU fans who are Chiefs fans hated Mitch.

[cripple creek]

Originally Posted by ChiefBlueCFC

I feel the primary concern of any running game falls onto the offensive line and also the scheme. But, I'd say the line is the most responsible. Obviously, the RB matters too, but if the line can't block guys, it doesn't matter who the RB is (minus Barry Sanders).

Look at SF this year and Mike Shanahan's donkey teams. They plugged in rando after rando and they produced because the line and the eventually ruled illegalscheme worked well.

[tmax63]

I want a RB that is elite at picking up the blitz and damn good at catching the ball out of the backfield. The Chiefs need another good IOL to take over starting at LG or C to help with the running game, but more importantly, to provide that extra half-second plus that's the difference from hitting TH downfield for 35yds or a house call or checking down and rushing a throw. I'd draft a center in a heartbeat if he'll start for the next 5 years and keep PMII upright and clean.

[Chiefshrink]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

aye.

but which do you feel is MOST pressing, I guess is the question.

You protect your franchise player first then everything else to your point will fall in place.

[tmax63]

OL, especially after getting that Raiders RB today.

[Chiefshrink]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

We clearly miss Morse, whom Chief Fan hated, oddly enough.

No we didn't. And I didn't miss Morse and his glass vagina either. Morse was too expensive to keep for the injuries and games he missed. He even missed several in Buffalo. Reiter may not be all that naturally talented and gets bull rushed too easily at times but he is one tough SOB and he is still developing. And btw he did win a SB.

[MahiMike]

The line of course

[threebag]

What if Dee Ford didn’t line up WAY offsides? Two in a row?



Without a doubt in mind.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Mecca

And we're in that spot because we can't afford to pay a top priced center...

If we go into the year with this RB group I'd be concerned, 2 of them have shown to get injured and the other showed nothing when he played.

Everything you're saying just points to drafting interior offensive line and doing so fairly early.

[Chris Meck]

A great OL helps in two ways- 1)opens holes for the backs and 2) gives Mahomes time and keeps him upright.

I'm down with a mid round RB draftee, I'm not content with JAG, having an elite back would be kick-ass.

But if there's nowhere to go with the ball at the hand-off it ain't gonna matter.

I can totally see drafting a Ruiz at Center in the 2nd. (I kind of expect us to trade out of the first). He'd be a huge upgrade and probably a ten year starter. That kind of stability would be hard to quantify.

I still see CB as our greatest need, and LB is a need too. And somewhere in there a RB (I kind of like Antonio Gibson's skillset.)

[Dunerdr]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

A great OL helps in two ways- 1)opens holes for the backs and 2) gives Mahomes time and keeps him upright.

I'm down with a mid round RB draftee, I'm not content with JAG, having an elite back would be kick-ass.

But if there's nowhere to go with the ball at the hand-off it ain't gonna matter.

I can totally see drafting a Ruiz at Center in the 2nd. (I kind of expect us to trade out of the first). He'd be a huge upgrade and probably a ten year starter. That kind of stability would be hard to quantify.

I still see CB as our greatest need, and LB is a need too. And somewhere in there a RB (I kind of like Antonio Gibson's skillset.)

Locked on chiefs had one of their guests on saying that tackle is a sneaky need as a developmental spot. Could we see a tackle and IOL guy taken this year? With breeland on the roster do we just attack needs early round 1/2 with bpa at those spots in mind? Ruiz with the first pick zwilson with the 2? then depth at corner/OL/rb?

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

Yeah, I keep hearing this - but I’ve yet to see it demonstrated statistically other than “the eye test” or the “37 ppg” number that’s thrown out. Kareem had home run potential catching passes (a lot of secondaries just were not up to bring him down) - but to say Kareem was far better for the offense doesn’t hold water to me. The only analysis comparing the two I’ve seen on this came from Baldy’s breakdowns who pretty much concluded that Chiefs fans were overestimating Kareem through nostalgia. I think that nostalgia may be going on around these parts a bit too.

I’m not discounting Kareem either, trust me. I’m a Royals fan, a team who made back to back trips to the WS despite a lot of “analytics people” chalking it up to luck. It’s possible Kareem’s contributions went way further than Damien’s - I just have yet to see that reflected statistically or in results from the team.

Stats are not the end-all/be-all for measuring a player's value/capabilities.

For instance, Most people would say that Barry Sanders is the best RB or in the top 3 RBs of all time. And yet he fumbled more than Shady per season. In fact he averaged almost 4 fumbles/season. As a matter of fact, when you look at the top 5 RBs of all time, which includes not only Sanders, but also the likes of Walter Payton, and Emmit Smith, McCoy has been far better at holding onto the football than any of them.

And Shady has been far and away a better receiver out of the backfield than Barry. And Shady has had far less negative yardage plays.

Do these stats make Shady better than Barry? No, of course not. There is no argument for Shady being better than Barry. "But the stats!" Yeah, well, as I keep saying, stats only tell a part of the story. The "eye test" between the two alone tells you that Barry was in a different zip code than Shady. And that's not to take anything at all away from LeSean; Barry was simply the MJ of RBs.

Now, I'm not saying Kareem is Barry Sanders; let's not go down that stupid rabbit hole either. It was just an example that everybody could understand.

So when we're talking about comparing Damien and Kareem, it's not about TDs or yards/carry. Those are nice metrics but they don't adequately explain what Kareem was worth to the Chiefs.

The fact of the matter is that Kareem was a better pass-catcher, better pass protector, has better change-of-direction, better vision, more burst, runs with more violence, and possesses better situational awareness than Damien, period. And every opposing DC knew that part of the equation was that they had to account for Kareem Hunt.

They don't think that way about Damien. That's not to malign Damien; these are just the facts. Anyone can watch either play and understand this.