Sunday Night Football: Colts at Chiefs 820 PM/NBC

[Fountain City Blues]

The Chiefs are cruising for 10-6 or 11-5 imo. Pats are probably closer to 14-2.

Chiefs have forced 4 turnovers within their own red zone this year and had some timely stops on defense against the Ravens and Lions. They could very easily be something like 2-3 right now. 4-1 with a banged up team and a defense with a lot of new players? Yeah, I'll take that.

We'll see.

Last night would be more panic inducing for me if I thought Hill, Fisher, and Watkins would all be out for much longer. Depth failed a pretty stern test all over the place on offense outside of Pringle.

The Jones situation is very scary to me if that is a season ending/debilitating type injury.

Would hardly be surprised if 11-5 happened, the NFL is weird and 13-14 TTL teams don't really exist hardly ever outside of maybe the 07 Pats or some monstrosity like that. Schedule is hardly easy.

The Texans game has a lot more skin on the table than it did this time yesterday.

 

[Cedrique]

I don't think you can just count on that game plan working from start to finish too often. There are too many variables that can mess you up, like a couple holding penalties in a row or a missed field goal. I think somewhere near the end of the 3rd quarter Reich did the math and saw an opportunity to win the game without even scoring a touchdown.
On the Chiefs side in retrospect maybe they should have just sold out completely and gone to the goal line defense for the whole second half. (Like Ampipe against Walnut Heights. Where's Craig T Nelson when you need him?) Worst case scenario they score quicker and you get Mahomes and company back on the field

 

[Clayton]

We'll see.

Last night would be more panic inducing for me if I thought Hill, Fisher, and Watkins would all be out for much longer. Depth failed a pretty stern test all over the place on offense outside of Pringle.

The Jones situation is very scary to me if that is a season ending/debilitating type injury.

Would hardly be surprised if 11-5 happened, the NFL is weird and 13-14 TTL teams don't really exist hardly ever outside of maybe the 07 Pats or some monstrosity like that. Schedule is hardly easy.

The Texans game has a lot more skin on the table than it did this time yesterday.

I think the Chiefs method of success is going to have to be the usual 5-1 in the AFC West, .500 against everyone else. NFC North, AFC South, Pats and Ravens as a schedule doesn't leave a lot of cupcakes. If the Chiefs get healthy and win their 3 division home games at the end of the season and beat the Bears then they have probably can get into the playoffs.

Games against the Texans, Titans, Vikings, Packers are important but they just need to hold water down that stretch and try to get healthy.

 

[Rex Racer]

Not really.

Just amused that people honestly think the running game matters, or TOP.

Until KC can stop a decent running game it will matter.................. a lot.

 

[Myles]

I don't think you can just count on that game plan working from start to finish too often. There are too many variables that can mess you up, like a couple holding penalties in a row or a missed field goal. I think somewhere near the end of the 3rd quarter Reich did the math and saw an opportunity to win the game without even scoring a touchdown.

I agree. I think it is a smart game plan to start with the hope of controlling the TOP and limiting their offense. Typically KC would thwart that plan by scoring a few TD's. Then the opponent has to somewhat give up on that plan. The Colts were able to hold KC from scoring much, so they were able to continue with the run plays and short high % passes to keep the clock running.

 

[Myles]

The Chiefs defense allowed 4.47 yards per play man... The YPC was 4.0. That'd be a bottom 3 number in 2018 for an offense.

Those are horrible numbers for an offense which doesn't even include the interception. Would be a bottom 3 offense almost guaranteed if that was a full season mark.

Nope.
The Colts were fine with a 4.0 yard per carry mark. It keeps moving the chains. Ticking away at the clock. They were not trying any crazy plays. Run it for 5, run it for 3 and pass it for 6. It's how a team can use their O-line and running game to beat a much higher powered offense.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Nope.
The Colts were fine with a 4.0 yard per carry mark. It keeps moving the chains. Ticking away at the clock. They were not trying any crazy plays. Run it for 5, run it for 3 and pass it for 6. It's how a team can use their O-line and running game to beat a much higher powered offense.

Very difficult for me to care when its 19 points. If it was 30, or even 25, I'd be more impressed. There's a reason rushing is negative EPA typically- it's not actually a good strategy.

 

[dbldwn711]

Very difficult for me to care when its 19 points. If it was 30, or even 25, I'd be more impressed. There's a reason rushing is negative EPA typically- it's not actually a good strategy.

That analysis fails to take into account strategy or situations.

Atlanta was up 28-3 in the SB. The situation called for them to run the ball, work the clock, etc. They didn’t. They stuck with “we need to score every time we touch the ball” mentality. It cost them a SB

That analysis presupposes that EVERY possession is of equal value. It isn’t. Grinding out a running game while moving the chains late in a game with a lead (especially on the road where crowd noise is a factor) is just as valuable to winning as scoring on an early possession. Taking the clock down, forcing the other team to use their TOs, etc is ALL part of it.

Limiting the number of times a potent offense like the chiefs touches the ball (even if you limit the number of times your offense touches the ball) is a strategy. IMO it’s a better strategy than trying to outscore them.

 

[Myles]

Very difficult for me to care when its 19 points. If it was 30, or even 25, I'd be more impressed. There's a reason rushing is negative EPA typically- it's not actually a good strategy.

It was a great strategy. When you are playing on the road against a much more potent offense, it is a great strategy to limit their touches and keep the game low scoring. Then let you team earn a 1 possession win. Worked perfect. Colts were not going to win this game 38-37. They slowed it down and handcuffed the Chiefs.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

That analysis fails to take into account strategy or situations.

Atlanta was up 28-3 in the SB. The situation called for them to run the ball, work the clock, etc. They didn’t. They stuck with “we need to score every time we touch the ball” mentality. It cost them a SB

That analysis presupposes that EVERY possession is of equal value. It isn’t. Grinding out a running game while moving the chains late in a game with a lead (especially on the road where crowd noise is a factor) is just as valuable to winning as scoring on an early possession. Taking the clock down, forcing the other team to use their TOs, etc is ALL part of it.

Limiting the number of times a potent offense like the chiefs touches the ball (even if you limit the number of times your offense touches the ball) is a strategy. IMO it’s a better strategy than trying to outscore them.

I'd politely point out WPA ≠ EPA, but 28-3 at half really isn't the time to start running clock, especially when the opponent has Brady. I'd also politely point out sometimes the 1%tile outcome actually does happen. Shit happens.

There was never a situation in the game last night where the script was so wildly skewed as 28-3 until it was 19-10 late.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

It was a great strategy. When you are playing on the road against a much more potent offense, it is a great strategy to limit their touches and keep the game low scoring. Then let you team earn a 1 possession win. Worked perfect. Colts were not going to win this game 38-37. They slowed it down and handcuffed the Chiefs.

This would make more sense if there were 6 possessions in the game. Or more than 1 less than their average. It doesn't, however.

Not saying you go for a 14 possession hyperactive game, but saying possessions were reduced is kind of wonky when it was well within normal variance. More than one way to have long time consuming drives. Not really convinced the Chiefs were doing a whole ton if you gave them 15 possessions last night with how their skill positions and OL got, for a lack of better term, owned by the Colts.

 

[dbldwn711]

I'd politely point out WPA ≠ EPA, but 28-3 at half really isn't the time to start running clock, especially when the opponent has Brady. I'd also politely point out sometimes the 1%tile outcome actually does happen. Shit happens.

There was never a situation in the game last night where the script was so wildly skewed as 28-3 until it was 19-10 late.

It was 28-3 halfway thru the third Quarter. Brady can’t be Brady if you LIMIT THE NUMBER OF POSSESSIONS he gets. That’s the point. Same point with Mahomes last night.

Nobody is saying the colts won SOLELY because they ran the ball and held a big edge in TOP. It was however part of an overall strategy that was effective. They still had to execute plays on defense, special teams, etc. They had to avoid penalties or mental mistakes but the point is it was part of an overall strategy to win. It’s much more common than the 1% that you are claiming it is.

According to your analysis/evidence the best strategy is to ALWAYS be trying to score a TD on offense. That’s clearly not true

 

[Fountain City Blues]

It was 28-3 halfway thru the third Quarter. Brady can’t be Brady if you LIMIT THE NUMBER OF POSSESSIONS he gets. That’s the point. Same point with Mahomes last night.

Nobody is saying the colts won SOLELY because they ran the ball and held a big edge in TOP. It was however part of an overall strategy that was effective. They still had to execute plays on defense, special teams, etc. They had to avoid penalties or mental mistakes but the point is it was part of an overall strategy to win. It’s much more common than the 1% that you are claiming it is.

According to your analysis/evidence the best strategy is to ALWAYS be trying to score a TD on offense. That’s clearly not true

No, but it usually is the vast majority of the time. Go for the kill.

The 1% outcome is actually referring the Pats win probability for a (long) stretch of that game. If it were so easy to limit possessions, it'd be a much more ubiquitous and successful strategy in the NFL; and probably more parity as the results would be a lot more random.

 

[Myles]

This would make more sense if there were 6 possessions in the game. Or more than 1 less than their average. It doesn't, however.

Not saying you go for a 14 possession hyperactive game, but saying possessions were reduced is kind of wonky when it was well within normal variance. More than one way to have long time consuming drives. Not really convinced the Chiefs were doing a whole ton if you gave them 15 possessions last night with how their skill positions and OL got, for a lack of better term, owned by the Colts.

The Chiefs went for an onside kick in an attempt to get the 1 more possession they needed.
The Colts ate the clock and moved the ball which kept them in the game.

 

[dbldwn711]

The Chiefs went for an onside kick in an attempt to get the 1 more possession they needed.
The Colts ate the clock and moved the ball which kept them in the game.

Great point.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

The Chiefs went for an onside kick in an attempt to get the 1 more possession they needed.
The Colts ate the clock and moved the ball which kept them in the game.

True, the offense failed to score. This scenario can replay if you had 11 possessions instead.

I don't think I am nearly as impressed by a 1 possession deficit as you are, especially when it can just as easily be explained by random luck and variance. The Jags allowed 8 possessions to the Chiefs in week 1 for instance, iirc.

 

[dbldwn711]

No, but it usually is the vast majority of the time. Go for the kill.

The 1% outcome is actually referring the Pats win probability for a (long) stretch of that game. If it were so easy to limit possessions, it'd be a much more ubiquitous and successful strategy in the NFL; and probably more parity as the results would be a lot more random.

I think “going for the kill” is also a winning strategy if you have the right team. If I’m the Chiefs and I have the offense they do... you bet... I’m going for the kill. If I’m the Bills... I’m not. I’m gonna rely on my defense to keep me in games and look to create opportunities off my defense.

IMO it’s wrong to say that X is the strategy all teams should use.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Show me a study that says when you control the clock significantly more than your opponent that does not lead to a higher probability of winning.

oh now you have done it!

 

[CaptainStubing]

The Chiefs are cruising for 10-6 or 11-5 imo. Pats are probably closer to 14-2.

Chiefs have forced 4 turnovers within their own red zone this year and had some timely stops on defense against the Ravens and Lions. They could very easily be something like 2-3 right now. 4-1 with a banged up team and a defense with a lot of new players? Yeah, I'll take that.

i think this is a fair assessment.

the chiefs schedule is quite difficult and i could see 10-6

they have 5 division games left. they probably win 3 or 4 of those.

then they have the texans, vikings, packers, patriots, bears, and titans. they probably win 3 of those. so, yep, 10 or 11 wins total.

 

[Myles]

True, the offense failed to score. This scenario can replay if you had 11 possessions instead.

I don't think I am nearly as impressed by a 1 possession deficit as you are, especially when it can just as easily be explained by random luck and variance. The Jags allowed 8 possessions to the Chiefs in week 1 for instance, iirc.

Actually the Chiefs had the ball 10 times in that game. KC also started out with a FG and 2 TD's. Had that happened with the Colts, they would have had to open it up more. That time of game plan is based off of going with it until you can't. The Colts kept this game close and just ran with the plan the entire game.