Chiefs vs Lions NFL Opener

[RobbRiddick]

2 hours ago, HOUSE said:

I was watching Gunsmoke

Festus got shot on the horse trail

The fact that someone gave you an eye roll for this just makes it even funnier to me

[ColoradoBills]

1 hour ago, wjag said:

Friday Morning Quarterbacking. 
 

One thing that is crystal clear after last night.  Chiefs need Kelce more than they need Jones.  The Chiefs offense just looked discombobulated without that big lug in the middle of the field and at the goal line.  

 

It always amuses me about the next day with, if this play went this way or that play went that way.

Lots of "KC would have won if....... stuff.  

 

Lions played pretty well and to counter some of these KC comments, Lions driving the ball again early on only to have the center shotgun the

ball into the motion man.  Another shotgun snap that Goff had to flop on.  It goes both ways.  Lions tightened up after that drive but ultimately

made the plays that they needed to win the game.

 

The game is one play at a time.  The result of every play affects everything going forward.  It's what makes the game so fun to watch.

 

First game of the season doesn't tell you much, but the birds chirped a little sweeter this morning!

 

 

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, eball said:

 

There were two really bad 4th down decisions in that game.  The first was Campbell punting from the Chiefs’ 40 on 4th and 3, and the second was Reid going for 4th and 25.

 

I think you have to go for it on 4th and 25.  You're only chance of winning is scoring, and it's almost certain that the only way you're going to score is on offense.   Yes, it's possible they'll muff the punt or turn it over after you punt, but the chances of either of those happening are slim.  You have to score, and you have to score on offense.   If you punt, and stop the Lions on three plays, you get the ball back with maybe a minute 40 and no timeouts.  If you go for it and don't make it, and if you stop the Lions on three plays, you still get the ball back with a minute 40 left and timeouts.  MAYBE, the Lions get a field goal.  

 

But the point is, the ball with minute 40 and no timeouts is maybe five or six plays, excluding downs you burn clocking the ball.  I think at that point in the game, having one more offensive play, even if it's fourth and 25, is more valuable than the field position you might lose.   You need to give Mahomes every opportunity with the ball that you can.   And maybe on fourth and 25 the Chiefs gain 20.   Then if the Lions go three and out, they punt and you're in the same position you would have been in had you punted instead of going for it.  So, by going for it, the Chiefs got an extra offensive play, and that point in the game, having that play is very valuable.  It didn't work out, but I think the decision was correct.   Mediocre QB, maybe you make a different decision, but I know that if it's the Bills in that situation, I want to put the ball in Allen's hands.   

 

Either way, if you fail, you have to rely on your defense for a stop, but only by going for it do you have an extra chance for your QB to make a play.  

[Success]

The team I saw last night isn't the same one that seemed like a major obstacle the past few years.

 

Since hot takes are so cool now, I'll offer one:  for this year, the Chiefs will not be one of the top 4 teams in the AFC.  The Ravens, Jags & Bengals will be the main teams we have to worry about come January.

 

[mjt328]

23 hours ago, 90sBills said:

 No other franchise have Mahomes. Master chef at making chicken salad out of chicken *****. 

 

Quarterbacks can make average WRs look good, and good WRs look great.

But they can't do anything if the WR fails to actually get open or catch the ball.

 

Last night's game reminded me of Week 1 last year with the Packers.  The front office traded Davante Adams, and surrounded the MVP-quarterback with a bunch of young inexperienced talent (hoping he would elevate it).  It took exactly one game for Aaron Rodgers' frustration to totally boil over.  

 

Of course, Patrick Mahomes will have Travis Kelce back soon, not to mention an offensive mastermind on the sideline.  Things will surely get better.  But I could definitely see the WR corps being somewhat of a problem all year.

 

[RobbRiddick]

Just now, Success said:

The team I saw last night isn't the same one that seemed like a major obstacle the past few years.

 

Since hot takes are so cool now, I'll offer one:  for this year, the Chiefs will not be one of the top 4 teams in the AFC.  The Ravens, Jags & Bengals will be the main teams we have to worry about come January.

 

Nice to think but I've learned to take game 1 with a pinch of salt. The landscape after the first week of games never looks the same as it does at the end of the season. Saw it so many times with NE. The chiefs will get it together and then go around saying no one believed in them and expected them to fail. 

 

Although saying that I did have the chiefs as the 4th or 5th seed in my predictions this year, including a loss last night. But I'm rarely right more than once a season so they'll probably run the board now

[mannc]

22 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I didn't say they were great running the ball, and I didn't say they can win just with that they have.  My point is that they, like many teams, have decided that they're going to feature the run more than was common a few years ago.   Coaches are figuring out that it's gotten more difficult to pass than a few years ago, and one of the reasons is that defenses (including the Bills' defense) are selling out to stop the pass.  That's why the Bills play a slot corner instead of an outside linebacker in a 4-3 alignment.   As teams have sold out to stop the pass, running is getting easier, so coaches have realized that featuring the run is a viable way to build an offense.  See Ravens, 49ers, Titans.   The pendulum is swinging, and the Lions clearly are part of that trend.  

I don’t think it’s a trend. The teams you’ve mentioned all lack a great passing quarterback…they are trying to make a virtue of necessity by using expensive assets on their running games.  I don’t think it’s a formula for long-term success and those teams are not going to consistently beat teams like KC, Buffalo, Cincinnati and the Eagles, who have high level passing games.

 

As for the Lions, I am not a fan of their draft, as much as I like Gibbs and Laporta.  They had four top-45 picks, including 6 overall, and didn’t come away with a single player at a premium position, despite their crying need at CB and, IMO, WR.  The guys they selected will make an impact this year, but it was poor team-building.

[Warcodered]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Oh, I disagree.  His decision making was superb.  His movement in the pocket is excellent, and his decisions to run are almost always correct.   Give him a 10-yard completion instead of the pick six that was totally not on him, and his passer rating was in the 90s.   Give him a better receiver (Kelce, or a wideout), and Chiefs would have cruised.  All they needed was one score. 

 

There is no one better. 

The pick six might not have been on him but he was looking for a pick to throw for a while leading up to that point.

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I think you have to go for it on 4th and 25.  You're only chance of winning is scoring, and it's almost certain that the only way you're going to score is on offense.   Yes, it's possible they'll muff the punt or turn it over after you punt, but the chances of either of those happening are slim.  You have to score, and you have to score on offense.   If you punt, and stop the Lions on three plays, you get the ball back with maybe a minute 40 and no timeouts.  If you go for it and don't make it, and if you stop the Lions on three plays, you still get the ball back with a minute 40 left and timeouts.  MAYBE, the Lions get a field goal.  

 

But the point is, the ball with minute 40 and no timeouts is maybe five or six plays, excluding downs you burn clocking the ball.  I think at that point in the game, having one more offensive play, even if it's fourth and 25, is more valuable than the field position you might lose.   You need to give Mahomes every opportunity with the ball that you can.   And maybe on fourth and 25 the Chiefs gain 20.   Then if the Lions go three and out, they punt and you're in the same position you would have been in had you punted instead of going for it.  So, by going for it, the Chiefs got an extra offensive play, and that point in the game, having that play is very valuable.  It didn't work out, but I think the decision was correct.   Mediocre QB, maybe you make a different decision, but I know that if it's the Bills in that situation, I want to put the ball in Allen's hands.   

 

Either way, if you fail, you have to rely on your defense for a stop, but only by going for it do you have an extra chance for your QB to make a play.  

When they went for it they used up the two minute warning which could have gotten them the ball back at the end.

[Shaw66]

25 minutes ago, arcane said:

Don't disagree with any of this. 

Josh's best year passing was 2020, and what I remember most about that season was that everyone was open all of the time. What made Josh marvelous that year is that he was finding them whether the pocket was clean or if he had guys in his face in a 10 step dropback off his back foot. 

 

Absolutely.  The game is so much easier when the script works, and it's up to the OC to write a script that works.   The definition of "works" is that a receiver is getting open on schedule somewhere and quarterback makes the reads on time to see that the guy is getting open.   Then it's easy throw and catch.   

 

To raise a sore subject, I think that's one reason that Davis was disappointing last season.  Davis wasn't open, either (1) Josh blew the read and threw to the wrong man, or (2) the scheme didn't work, so no one was open and just just did the best he could.  It also could mean Josh should have audibled.   No. 2 receivers need the scheme to work and need the QB to recognize who the open guy is in the scheme.  

 

Last night, a variety of things may have happened.   One is that the Chiefs' game plan may have been faulty, because they didn't have a lot of film of the Lions.  They may have been outschemed.  Even so, the receivers let them down.  Mahomes didn't seem to have easy places to go with the ball as often as in past seasons.  Certainly Kelce would have given him a few more easy throws.   But the receivers on the field didn't look like they were helping, and then there were the drops.   Mahomes' throws weren't always perfect, but that doesn't excuse the drops.  

[Success]

5 minutes ago, RobbRiddick said:

Nice to think but I've learned to take game 1 with a pinch of salt. The landscape after the first week of games never looks the same as it does at the end of the season. Saw it so many times with NE. The chiefs will get it together and then go around saying no one believed in them and expected them to fail. 

 

Although saying that I did have the chiefs as the 4th or 5th seed in my predictions this year, including a loss last night. But I'm rarely right more than once a season so they'll probably run the board now

 

They could - but I think they made a major mistake not putting more focus on the WR corps.  That is going to be a big liability for them all season, unless they can make a move and  maybe get someone like Evans.  

 

It will help to have Kelce back, of course - but the rest of their offense is pretty middlin'.

 

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

The pick six might not have been on him but he was looking for a pick to throw for a while leading up to that point.

When they went for it they used up the two minute warning which could have gotten them the ball back at the end.

You have to assume that your defense will not give up the first down.   If you're defense is going to give up the first down, then by all means you should go for it on 4th and 25, because otherwise you're going to be in total desperation mode.  

[ngbills]

11 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

Not with receivers like they have this season.  

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Chargers won that division.  

 

 

Well last year we heard the same thing. Let’s see but chiefs tend to save it for when it matters. 

[Warriorspikes51]

14 minutes ago, Success said:

The team I saw last night isn't the same one that seemed like a major obstacle the past few years.

 

Since hot takes are so cool now, I'll offer one:  for this year, the Chiefs will not be one of the top 4 teams in the AFC.  The Ravens, Jags & Bengals will be the main teams we have to worry about come January.

 

 

If Kelce plays most of their games, they are a top 3 team 

[stevestojan]

Mahomes leads the NFL in interceptions. 

[Warriorspikes51]

Just now, stevestojan said:

Mahomes leads the NFL in interceptions. 

& their new RT should lead the NFL with 30 illegal formation and 30 false start penalties

[Warcodered]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

You have to assume that your defense will not give up the first down.   If you're defense is going to give up the first down, then by all means you should go for it on 4th and 25, because otherwise you're going to be in total desperation mode.  

This is also ignoring that this would put the Lions 4 points ahead of the Chiefs and the Chiefs hadn't scored anything more than a FG in the second half.

[Goin Breakdown]

Flip Mahomes name with any Qb and I think we'd be hearing about how the Qb made some good throws but also missed on a handful of overthrown balls and some passes that shouldn't have been thrown where they were. If the defenders had turned their heads a couple more times there could have been an Int or two (more). Plus one was dropped and one for a pick 6. 

[Shaw66]

6 minutes ago, mannc said:

I don’t think it’s a trend. The teams you’ve mentioned all lack a great passing quarterback…they are trying to make a virtue of necessity by using expensive assets on their running games.  I don’t think it’s a formula for long-term success and those teams are not going to consistently beat teams like KC, Buffalo, Cincinnati and the Eagles, who have high level passing games.

 

As for the Lions, I am not a fan of their draft, as much as I like Gibbs and Laporta.  They had four top-45 picks, including 6 overall, and didn’t come away with a single player at a premium position, despite their crying need at CB and, IMO, WR.  The guys they selected will make an impact this year, but it was poor team-building.

You're talking about the Lions, which is fine.  You can have your opinion about how they're going to do.   I don't have an opinion.  That's fine. 

 

As for the trend, I think it's clear.  There's been a very clear shift in the league, in terms of defensive strategy, in that more teams are following what was McDermott's lead.   Get pressure with four and try to limit the blitzes.   Play more zone (announcers last night said the Lions have gone that way), and stop the downfield passing game.   Defenses are getting good at that.   Mahomes didn't have success going deep last night, and Allen had more trouble last season as teams were forcing him to play the short game.   When your passing game is limited to short passes, because the defense is putting defenders deep, running becomes a more effective tool.  Why?  (1) Because with defenders deep, you don't find as many tacklers in the box between the tackles and, (2) the differential between yards gained per pass attempt and yards gain per rushing attempt shrinks.  

 

I think it's undeniable that it's happening.  Last night, the Lions forced Mahomes to throw short, and the Chiefs didn't take advantage by running more effectively.   The Lions didn't run great, either, but they had their moments when they hurt the Chiefs with the run.   The Chiefs weren't balanced in their offense, and increasingly, being balanced is important.   

 

I think it's clear that the Bills intend to be more balanced this season.   Why?  Because if you can hurt people with the running game, then the mid-range passing game becomes more effective, and it's easier to hurt people with Davis and Kincaid and Knox taking advantage of the open spaces.  As I've said, it's up to Dorsey.  

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

This is also ignoring that this would put the Lions 4 points ahead of the Chiefs and the Chiefs hadn't scored anything more than a FG in the second half.

I didn't ignore it.  I mentioned it.  It's a risk.  But at that point in the game, you have to take risks somewhere.   I just think that if you have a Patrick Mahomes, or a Josh Allen, the difference between giving him five chances with the ball and six chances with the ball is big enough to take the risk.    When you have a guy who can win the game for you, I think your decision making has to be skewed in the direction of giving him the ball as often as you can, and the risk be damned. 

[Warcodered]

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I didn't ignore it.  I mentioned it.  It's a risk.  But at that point in the game, you have to take risks somewhere.   I just think that if you have a Patrick Mahomes, or a Josh Allen, the difference between giving him five chances with the ball and six chances with the ball is big enough to take the risk.    When you have a guy who can win the game for you, I think your decision making has to be skewed in the direction of giving him the ball as often as you can, and the risk be damned. 

But you're taking a greater risk of him not having the ball by going for it and losing a time stop with the two minute warning. 4th and 25 is a ridiculous play to convert, you don't even have Tyreke Hill to run circles around people anymore. What are you going to do throw it deep and pray for PI call?