Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic
Running the football is not always about being productive. It's about making the defense think more, it's about helping the offensive line get a rhythm, it's about protecting your defense and allowing them to get crucial rest, etc.
And it's about wearing out the opposing defense. If Hunt ran the ball 12 times in the first half, and again in the second half, he likely would have started to make big gains. Why? Because the opposing defense gets tired. Because he is a extremely talented RB that needs the ball to display why he led the league in rushing.
But regardless of second half possessions, Reid never gave Hunt or the offensive line a chance to be successful running the ball. It's just poor coaching and game planning.
No matter how much this league develops dominant passing offenses, stopping the run game in the playoffs will always be important to winning it all. More often than not Reid basically does the opposing defense's job for them.
I am extremely grateful for Andy Reid choosing to take the KC job. He was such an improvement over what we had in the years prior. And I will forever be grateful for his roe in drafting and developing Mahomes.
My wish as a fan is always to win a Championship. Whether it's the Jayhawks, Royals, or the Chiefs. Marty took over a laughingstock and turned it into a perennial playoff team. But after a decade without a SB ring, or even a SB appearance, fans were ready to move on. I don't remember anyone championing the Keep Marty Movement at the time.
Marty is arguably a better coach than Reid, but no one excused his flaws then, so I don't understand why everyone continues to go such great lengths to excuse Reid's flaws now.
Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk
|
A) In no universe is Marty a better coach than Reid. There's literally not a single data point that would support it.
B) The myth that 'running wears out the defense' has been so thoroughly disproven at this point that it barely warrants mentioning. You know what wears out a defense? Having to chase guys around the field. Or having to rush upfield to get after a QB. The vast majority of defensive players are bigger than any RB they'll ever tackle - you really think they'd rather chase one of those guys out of the backfield than get in their stance and hit 'em?
Do you not remember Jalen Ramsey or Chris Harris needing oxygen late in games after chasing our guys around? Von Miller with his hands on his knees because he was just gassed trying to get upfield? You're preaching 30 year old dogma with that stuff, man. And if you've listened to some of the old DL on TV or radio lately, they'll all say 'man, we hated having to chase those guys around the field...'. In the end, your logic just doesn't past the sniff test.
And that's without getting into the number of 'causation vs. correlation' arguments that have been done to death on running the football. Yes, teams with high run totals largely win the game, but they almost always have high run totals BECAUSE they were winning the game. There's no statistical support to the idea that 'establishing the run' pays dividends later on.
Additionally, you don't have to run the football much
at all to 'make the defense think more'. Again, studies have been done on the effectiveness of play action as it relates to the amount of runs you attempt. Bottom line is that you only have to run often enough to establish running as a credible threat for things like PA to be effective. Andy has always done that. Moreover, the short passing game is equally effective at drawing down safeties/LBs to open up deeper strikes and Andy has always excelled at that as well.
And yes, stopping the run is important. Stopping the pass is MORE important and it's not even close, especially when you look at things like EPA. Andy continues to run the ball often enough to not do significant damage to his ability to pass it. And by passing it he's yielded FAR higher EPA figures and offensive efficiency numbers. So you say he's 'doing the defenses job for them' by stopping his own run, but the inverse of that is he's putting a TON more pressure on them by throwing it. It's simply a better way to move the football the vast majority of the time. He runs often enough to keep teams honest and that's truly all that matters.
You think its simple coincidence that the teams with the best QBs are the squads constantly winning championships? The outliers are the times that a running team goes out and owns. And the Ravens are just an exceptionally extreme version in that they ARE as efficient running as they are passing, but there's not another team in football that comes close to that sort of result.
Y'all are clinging to old saws to inform your opinion of how the game should be played. Meanwhile, it's leading you to argue that the dude who is widely seen as the most innovative offensive mind in football is some mouth-breathing idiot who forgets who to win games.
You're essentially among the ancient Greeks looking to burn Pythagoras as a heretic. The earth's round, bub. And running the football doesn't 'wear out the defense' anymore than passing the football does.