AFCCG: Pats at Chiefs Buildup

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Ok, as the lone Chief fan here, I will now express my impatience at the educated takes regarding this game, today expressed by Chris Gasper (who I respect and find a refreshing escape from the idiotic trolling of F&M). He and others have said that the Chiefs were impressive, but not very, against the Colts, and that the Pats will administer a death by a thousand cuts against the Chief defense to keep Mahomes off the field. But that’s exactly what KC did last week! They were content to keep the ball, control the clock, and make the Colts have to go downfield (albeit with the lead, but that’s how they got the lead). KC wants to keep Brady off the field too; it’s not like their offensive playbook consists only of 89-yard plays to Hill. Mahomes has shown the patience to accept the 6-yard gain to keep the chains moving. I think many underestimate that KC would love to play a ball control game. Can the Pats defense stop what many say the KC defense cannot?
It'll be interesting. Both the Chargers and the Colts defenses play a lot of zone, so the Patriots and Chiefs offenses both were able to play in the style you mentioned last weekend. But the Chiefs and Patriots defenses play a lot more man-to-man, where you're generally not conceding those six-yard gains like you do in zone. So the dink and dunk game may not be there. The Patriots defense certainly has its flaws, but it had the second-best completion percentage against in the NFL this year.

When they played earlier in the year, KC had some extended drives, but they ended in field goals (or in one case, a red zone INT). None of their four TD drives were longer than four plays (to be fair, one of those drives was only 3 yards and one only 29).

EDIT: I don't know why you'd want to play ball control, anyway. Limit the opponent's possessions and you limit your own, too. It's one thing if you're leading, or if you're the underdog, but scoring points is going to be way more important than eating clock.
 

pvg44

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
582
EDIT: I don't know why you'd want to play ball control, anyway. Limit the opponent's possessions and you limit your own, too. It's one thing if you're leading, or if you're the underdog, but scoring points is going to be way more important than eating clock.

You make good points, especially when referencing the 1st half of the first game this year. Also when trying to play ball control. I guess all i’m trying to say is that Mahomes grew this year in tempering his reckless throws. Yes, KC needs to score TDs rather than FGs, otherwise it’s another Alex Smith playoff game (let me state for the record that I have nothing but love and respect for Alex Smith; that fking guy put up 30, 38, 20 and 21 (in one half) points in his playoff games. He was neutered by Matt Nagy, but I digress). Mahomes will try to make something happen when he sees the opportunity, but he is less reckless than you (not personal) think.

Edit: I’m not good at trying to format this through the phone, sorry
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
You want to play ball control if their offense is better than yours is. Of course playing ball control without scoring is bad. Playing ball control while putting points on the board is good. But then again, putting points on the board quickly is always good, just not always better than putting points up slowly.

Put it this way: there's no doubt that if Brady could throw 75-yard touchdown passes on the first play of every possession, he and the Patriots would happily take that. But that's not how the game is going to go, and when you have Mahomes on the other side of the field, it does make sense to take your time, work your way down field, punch it in, and limit Mahomes' chances to score himself.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
Ultimately, you want to maximize your points scored per drive. That means calling the plays and playing at the tempo in which the offense is going to be most effective. Deviating from that ideal in order to extend drives is a bad idea in general. The exception is perhaps when the other team is much better than you - at that point there might be an incentive to increase variance by reducing drives per team. But the Chiefs aren’t much better than the Patriots.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,533
In the simulacrum
Any chance the Pats try to go hurry-up early (like almost all game)?

It seems like the Pats have historically been able to sustain hurry-up without running into its obvious weaknesses (players being disorganized and exhausted, not getting the play call straight). Its advantages are obvious also, especially on the road -- keeps the defenders trapped on the field, exhausted, keeps the crowd in an unsustainable state of yelling, eventually petering out.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Any chance the Pats try to go hurry-up early (like almost all game)?

It seems like the Pats have historically been able to sustain hurry-up without running into its obvious weaknesses (players being disorganized and exhausted, not getting the play call straight). Its advantages are obvious also, especially on the road -- keeps the defenders trapped on the field, exhausted, keeps the crowd in an unsustainable state of yelling, eventually petering out.
Tough to do on the road with the crowd noise.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
It'll be interesting. Both the Chargers and the Colts defenses play a lot of zone, so the Patriots and Chiefs offenses both were able to play in the style you mentioned last weekend. But the Chiefs and Patriots defenses play a lot more man-to-man, where you're generally not conceding those six-yard gains like you do in zone. So the dink and dunk game may not be there. The Patriots defense certainly has its flaws, but it had the second-best completion percentage against in the NFL this year.
From what I've read, KC plays man on the outside but zone in the middle/flats which means White/Edelman should still be able to eat.

Also interesting that Mahomes struggles much more vs. man than zone but Hill is the best WR in the NFL against man. Will be interesting to see how NE matches up against Hill, perhaps JC with a safety over the top? Let's just hope he doesn't get any 1-1 with Jason McCourty.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,144
I completely agree with this take. The Pats aren’t coming from two scores down to win. Any other outcome seems possible.
Looks like they already made sure they don't have to:

https://sports.theonion.com/patriots-score-2-touchdowns-against-chiefs-in-preemptiv-1831876600

"KANSAS CITY, MO—In an effort to gain a competitive advantage against a formidable opponent, the New England Patriots scored two touchdowns against the Chiefs Friday in a preemptive strike before Sunday’s AFC Championship Game. “We knew we had to do something to catch them off guard, so we ran a no-huddle offense before they stepped onto the field and were able to get 16 points on the board after those two-point conversions,” said Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, who overcame several dropped passes and a botched snap before finding the end zone twice. “Hopefully it’ll be tough for the Chiefs to overcome this deficit—especially if we win the coin toss and can put another score on the board before they even get a possession. I think it should give our defense the opportunity to pin their ears back and get after the QB. Mahomes tends to get careless with the ball when he’s playing from behind.” At press time, Chiefs head coach Andy Reid had already squandered all of the team’s timeouts before kickoff. "
 

BernieRicoBoomer

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2007
805
Bound Brook, NJ
Looks like they already made sure they don't have to:

https://sports.theonion.com/patriots-score-2-touchdowns-against-chiefs-in-preemptiv-1831876600

"KANSAS CITY, MO—In an effort to gain a competitive advantage against a formidable opponent, the New England Patriots scored two touchdowns against the Chiefs Friday in a preemptive strike before Sunday’s AFC Championship Game. “We knew we had to do something to catch them off guard, so we ran a no-huddle offense before they stepped onto the field and were able to get 16 points on the board after those two-point conversions,” said Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, who overcame several dropped passes and a botched snap before finding the end zone twice. “Hopefully it’ll be tough for the Chiefs to overcome this deficit—especially if we win the coin toss and can put another score on the board before they even get a possession. I think it should give our defense the opportunity to pin their ears back and get after the QB. Mahomes tends to get careless with the ball when he’s playing from behind.” At press time, Chiefs head coach Andy Reid had already squandered all of the team’s timeouts before kickoff. "
I wasn't finding it all that funny until that last line there.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
So just to be clear. 90% of the national media is picking against us, and those same reporters are saying we can't justifiably take on the "disrespect" card? What the fuck are they talking about?
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
I am as optimistic a Pats fan as I know. I think this team can win on Sunday. I don’t think they can come from behind, on the road.
This is ridiculous. Your thought is literally not accurate, because in a football contest the team behind can sometimes win the game, despite being behind. Being on the road does not make this possibility impossible.

The Pats came back against the Jags. They did it against Seattle. They did it against the Falcons. They did it against the Ravens a few years ago. Twice! Obviously none of these are road games, but the Pats haven't played man road playoff games in recent history. Their ability to come back is something that hasn't disappeared.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
This is ridiculous. Your thought is literally not accurate, because in a football contest the team behind can sometimes win the game, despite being behind. Being on the road does not make this possibility impossible.

The Pats came back against the Jags. They did it against Seattle. They did it against the Falcons. They did it against the Ravens a few years ago. Twice! Obviously none of these are road games, but the Pats haven't played man road playoff games in recent history. Their ability to come back is something that hasn't disappeared.
Why the vitriol? Why is his statement ridiculous — that he does not think (isn’t certain, just does not think) they can come from behind this weekend?

Where is playoff Amendola? Brandin Cooks?

I’ll spot you an absent Gronk for the second half, but his belief is far from crazy.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
So just to be clear. 90% of the national media is picking against us, and those same reporters are saying we can't justifiably take on the "disrespect" card? What the fuck are they talking about?
There is a difference between picking against them and burying them.

That said, the media suck. Calling Brady out on his statement is childish. Trying to set up Mahomes with “the torch is passed” — which he cleverly put to bed — is equally so.

But look, these are the very same assholes who tried to bait HC Marrone into a tampering violation with regard to Nick Foles.

They fucking suck — the vast majority of them. That’s why the two weeks between the Conference Championship Game and the Super Bowl are like hell.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,943
Silver Spring, MD
This is ridiculous. Your thought is literally not accurate, because in a football contest the team behind can sometimes win the game, despite being behind. Being on the road does not make this possibility impossible.

The Pats came back against the Jags. They did it against Seattle. They did it against the Falcons. They did it against the Ravens a few years ago. Twice! Obviously none of these are road games, but the Pats haven't played man road playoff games in recent history. Their ability to come back is something that hasn't disappeared.
Given the composition of the recent SB crowds, you could say the Seattle and Atlanta comebacks approximated road games.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Why the vitriol? Why is his statement ridiculous — that he does not think (isn’t certain, just does not think) they can come from behind this weekend?

Where is playoff Amendola? Brandin Cooks?

I’ll spot you an absent Gronk for the second half, but his belief is far from crazy.
I think the person arguing that a top 5 NFL offense led by Brady has the burden of proof as to why they can’t comeback in a game.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
Why the vitriol? Why is his statement ridiculous — that he does not think (isn’t certain, just does not think) they can come from behind this weekend?

Where is playoff Amendola? Brandin Cooks?

I’ll spot you an absent Gronk for the second half, but his belief is far from crazy.
Because it's a stupid hot take, a feeling, and one that doesn't align with the reality. If the Patriots fall behind, it does NOT mean they cannot come back. It's silly on its face and I am under the belief that this board tries to do better than post feelings as facts.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
Wait til you see playoff Dorsett. It’s real, and it’s spectacular.
“Contract year playoff Dorsett” is even better.

He’s been good all year when he’s played. I’ve often wondered why Hogan has taken basically all of his snaps. Brady has often appeared to not even look to him and, when asked about his performance this year, Belichick said “he’s been healthy.”
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
This is ridiculous. Your thought is literally not accurate, because in a football contest the team behind can sometimes win the game, despite being behind. Being on the road does not make this possibility impossible.

The Pats came back against the Jags. They did it against Seattle. They did it against the Falcons. They did it against the Ravens a few years ago. Twice! Obviously none of these are road games, but the Pats haven't played man road playoff games in recent history. Their ability to come back is something that hasn't disappeared.
You took out a key piece of my post. I said two scores down. I stand by that statement. They are built differently. If they become one dimensional they are likely toast.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,769
Hartford, CT
“Contract year playoff Dorsett” is even better.

He’s been good all year when he’s played. I’ve often wondered why Hogan has taken basically all of his snaps. Brady has often appeared to not even look to him and, when asked about his performance this year, Belichick said “he’s been healthy.”
Run blocking, perhaps?
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
9,056
You took out a key piece of my post. I said two scores down. I stand by that statement. They are built differently. If they become one dimensional they are likely toast.
Wait, if a team falls behind by 2 TDs, their odds of winning are greatly diminished? This is news.

27 hours.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Wait, if a team falls behind by 2 TDs, their odds of winning are greatly diminished? This is news.

27 hours.
Some of you are being obtuse.

You fucking well know (a) that KC has more weapons in a shootout and (b) the hill becomes that much higher at that venue if they fall behind significantly.

But carry on.

Edit. For the record, I can see a KC blowout, a NE blowout, and everything in between. Almost nothing would surprise me tomorrow.
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
9,056
Some of you are being obtuse.

You fucking well know (a) that KC has more weapons in a shootout and (b) the hill becomes that much higher at that venue if they fall behind significantly.

But carry on.

Edit. For the record, I can see a KC blowout, a NE blowout, and everything in between. Almost nothing would surprise me tomorrow.
The point everyone is making is that these are obvious statements. You are nervous that if KC gets ahead by 2 TD that they will likely win? That is because their win probability would be over 90% in this made up scenario. And yes, the Patriots have over come these in the playoffs before. They also haven’t on some occasions. Either way everyone can agree it is suboptimal to trail by multiple scores within the same game.

To my point a few days ago, it is hilarious to see the behavior shift from excitement to fear as we get closer to game time.

22 hours.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
I felt like past Patriot teams could throw every play and still win. The 2014 team could. The 2016 team could. I don’t think the 2018 Pats can throw 55 times and win like the 2014 team did against Baltimore and Seattle, and the 2016 team did against Atlanta. They are far more run oriented. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, this team is more well balanced. But the flip side is having to throw every play seems like more of an uphill climb than past years. Is that really a controversial take?
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
The point everyone is making is that these are obvious statements. You are nervous that if KC gets ahead by 2 TD that they will likely win? That is because their win probability would be over 90% in this made up scenario. And yes, the Patriots have over come these in the playoffs before. They also haven’t on some occasions. Either way everyone can agree it is suboptimal to trail by multiple scores within the same game.

To my point a few days ago, it is hilarious to see the behavior shift from excitement to fear as we get closer to game time.

22 hours.
No, the point is that one of our posters was labeled “ridiculous” when he said that he “thinks” they cannot overcome a significant deficit.

That’s the only reason I weighed in.

One cannot at the same time label his observation ridiculous, then claim it is obvious.
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
9,056
No, the point is that one of our posters was labeled “ridiculous” when he said that he “thinks” they cannot overcome a significant deficit.

That’s the only reason I weighed in.

One cannot at the same time label his observation ridiculous, then claim it is obvious.
Well you jumped onto my quote, which is why I responded. I called it obvious, because it was. You are somehow lumping in ridiculous (someone else) and obvious (me) as both people arguing on the same path. Mine was that it was obvious if they fall behind that presents a large challenge. The other poster was saying it was ridiculous to rule out a comeback and cited a few examples of such. They aren’t the same thing.

Either way we’ve successfully shown there is too much time in between games. Can’t believe there isn’t a Saturday night game.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
No, the point is that one of our posters was labeled “ridiculous” when he said that he “thinks” they cannot overcome a significant deficit.

That’s the only reason I weighed in.

One cannot at the same time label his observation ridiculous, then claim it is obvious.
Saying you're nervous about something being difficult =/= saying it can't be done.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
Missing my point. It’s not that falling behind presents a large challenge. That is of course, obviously, true. My point was that this particular Patriots team seems less likely to come back from such a situation compared to past teams.
 

pvg44

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
582
Not much more to be said. I think if KC wins it will be because of Sammy Watkins on the offensive side.

Good luck, all. May the better team win.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
What complete fucking losers. Would SOOO love to bath in their salty tears again. Please, please get it done tomorrow, and torture the rest of the football world by going to no. 9.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/hall-of-fame-running-back-believes-patriots-cheated-against-rams-in-super-bowl-xxxvi/
It will only get worse as they get older. To their credit, you don’t hear this nonsense out of the Colts upset by Namath.

Speaking of losers — after Mahomes pissed on the AFC’s “torch”, the four-letter lit it again and brought it into the other conference.

http://www.espn.com/blog/new-orleans-saints/post/_/id/31497/drew-brees-bonds-with-jared-goff-but-not-ready-to-pass-torch
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,249
from the wilds of western ma
It will only get worse as they get older. To their credit, you don’t hear this nonsense out of the Colts upset by Namath.

Speaking of losers — after Mahomes pissed on the AFC’s “torch”, the four-letter lit it again and brought it into the other conference.

http://www.espn.com/blog/new-orleans-saints/post/_/id/31497/drew-brees-bonds-with-jared-goff-but-not-ready-to-pass-torch
On balance, yes, I think the Colts took their loss like big boys. But didn’t Bubba Smith long maintain that he thought there was a gambling fix in that game?
 

TomTerrific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,702
Wayland, MA
On balance, yes, I think the Colts took their loss like big boys. But didn’t Bubba Smith long maintain that he thought there was a gambling fix in that game?
Absolutely. Before I converted to the True Faith, I was a Jets fan growing up in the 70's. We heard the Bubba Smith fix story a bazillion times.

As I recall, his "evidence" was 1. Namath guaranteed victory and Namath had mob contacts, 2. Shula held out Unitas until it was too late, and 3. Tom Matte partied too gleefully after the game for someone on the losing side
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Absolutely. Before I converted to the True Faith, I was a Jets fan growing up in the 70's. We heard the Bubba Smith fix story a bazillion times.

As I recall, his "evidence" was 1. Namath guaranteed victory and Namath had mob contacts, 2. Shula held out Unitas until it was too late, and 3. Tom Matte partied too gleefully after the game for someone on the losing side
That’s one guy. The 2001 Rams have at least 5 of them, coaches included.

Society has evolved like our modern game threads. Blame somebody. Blame the League. Blame the game officials. Blame somebody — but don’t acknowledge you put up a c-minus effort or, worse, credit your opponent.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
Anyone have stats on Clete Blakemen's OL holding calls vs league average?
I have a feeling this game could be decided by offensive holding calls. NE should be able to run at will against KC. NE has the 4th best running OL by FO vs. the 31 worst KC DL. Holding calls will more than tip those scales esp if they are as egregiously bad as the 3rd Q hold called against IND last week.