Thread: Breaking Down The Chiefs

The Denver Broncos face the toughest opponent they’ve faced all season in the Kansas City Chiefs. It’s also the team’s third divisional game of the season.

The last time the Chiefs were in town it was week 17 of the 2012 season and the Broncos demolished the Chiefs 38-3.

Last year, Kansas City was the worst team in football at 2-14; they are a much better football team this year. A key reason for that is Andy Reid. The veteran coach seems to have gotten his groove back in new surroundings after leaving the Philadelphia Eagles. Reid, whose teams haven’t won more than eight games since the 2010 season, already has nine this year. He has the Chiefs poised for a playoff spot which hasn’t happened in that city since 2010 when the team lost to Baltimore 30-7.

Two big factors that have aided the improvement of the offense would be the addition of....CONTINUE READING

Run the ball
The Chiefs aren’t good against the run, giving up an average of 118.6 yards per game on the ground. Knowshon Moreno is the veteran in the backfield. Run it down their throats.

Unfortunately, we haven't run well the past month; Knowshon Morenos 65 yards last week was the only one of our last our games that he had >50. We need better blocking to get him the kind of production he had in our first five games, when he averaged 5.1 per carry; since Orlando Franklins injury against Jax put him on the bench next to Ryan Clady, Moreno's average is down to 3.3.

Use the run to sell the pass
Quite the opposite of what the Broncos have done this season but play-action is the Broncos friend in this matchup. If the Broncos can establish the run game and make the Chiefs honor it. Manning can do the rest.

Run to establish the pass is as old as the hills; it's far easier to pass with a safety in the box—IF teams not only run, but so successfully it demands safety help; if the defense can ignore the possibility of a run because the offense never gains much doing it, they can and will sell out on the pass as their only threat. It's not enough just to handoff a lot, then punt; runs must produce.

Protect Manning
This goes without saying, fans were on edge last week when Manning went down against the Chargers due to a hit to Manning’s ankle by Corey Liuget. Alex Gibbs and the Broncos offensive line has to figure something out to keep that ankle safe. The Broncos have allowed the least amount of pressures this season with 62, but 31 of those have come in the last three weeks. The Chiefs lead the league in sacks with 36 and Tamba Hali and Justin Houston will have their ears pinned back all game.

The Chiefs pass rush is a big reason they lead the NFL in takeaways; strip-sacks+pressured throws=lots of turnovers. No one needs to tell Peyton Manning that; he's been blindside strip-sacked in each of his last three games, and the only time it didn't result in a short TD drive was when it resulted in a safety FOLLOWED by a TD drive. That safety and TD, combined with an interception when Indy shoved Julius Thomas into Manning and grabbed his arm, produced 12 Indy points, twice their victory margin.

So we end where we began: Denver must block well to win, but IF we do KC is sunk. They have two Pro Bowl LBs lined up on the left, and backup LT Chris Clark can't handle both of them, especially if LG Zane Beadles must help C Manny Ramirez against 3-4 NT Dontari Poe. Beadles, though a good downfield blocker against smaller safeties and LBs, also has a bad habit of letting defenders into the backfield to take down backs early in the run game. Tight ends on the left could be key, REAL tight ends who catch AND block (e.g. Dreesen, Tamme) rather than big receivers and fast tackles impersonating TEs.

Originally Posted by Joel;

Tight ends on the left could be key, REAL tight ends who catch AND block (e.g. Dreesen, Tamme) rather than big receivers and fast tackles impersonating TEs.

Joel, you are becoming a broken record with your obsession over OJ's blocking. Yes, he's not our best blocking TE but he's by far our best receiving threat from the position. None of your complaining is going to change that he's going to start and get the majority of the snaps. I get your concern but please, we don't need to hear about it in every single thread.

Originally Posted by Bronco4ever

Joel, you are becoming a broken record with your obsession over OJ's blocking. Yes, he's not our best blocking TE but he's by far our best receiving threat from the position. None of your complaining is going to change that he's going to start and get the majority of the snaps. I get your concern but please, we don't need to hear about it in every single thread.

He's our WORST blocking TE, and the ONLY indisputably better receiver than Dreesen. Tight end receptions won't beat KC tomorrow; we have too many other receiving threats, and too few other blockers. I wouldn't be surprised if JT DOESN'T start tomorrow, because he brings nothing indispensable to the table, which is not true for ANY other Denver TE.

Whether he starts or doesn't though, blocking's the key to winning tomorrow. That's how we run on a bad run D, that's how we protect our limping 37 year old QB, that's how we avoid turnovers against a team forcing more than ANYONE. They can't beat us without turnovers, and know as well as anyone that's what's won pretty much every game of their so-far-unbeaten season. If Orange Julius suddenly—somehow—becomes a good (even passable) pass blocker, great; if not, we should put in someone who is. But I really don't care WHO keeps Manning off the turf and Moreno running free as long as SOMEONE does.

Julius Thomas' pass catching abilities could very well keep their LBs and safeties honest, Joel. Who's going to guard him?

Originally Posted by Slick

Julius Thomas' pass catching abilities could very well keep their LBs and safeties honest, Joel. Who's going to guard him?

Not Akeem Jordan. And certainly not Hali and Houston. Berry and Johnson are the only two who have a chance on that entire vaunted defense.

But by all means, let's just take that out of the equation and play Dreesen.

Did I do that right, Mo? The apostrophe after the s in Thomas?

If their LBs beat teams with coverage that would reassure me far more. The author of the ESPN article Carol just linked seems to strongly feel Berry will cover JT like he did Witten and every other good receiving TE they've faced, which is fine with me because leaving two Pro Bowl WRs plus Decker one-on-one DOES create opportunities.

Of course, that's what we've been hearing all along but it hasn't been as completely overwhelming the past month as DBs copied Indys press coverage and refs let everyone play "bump and bump" 15 yds downfield. Whenever that happens PFM needs just a bit longer to throw (apparently PI and Defensive Holding can't be called within 10 yds of the LoS either.) If that leads to strip-sacks prompting fans to angrily demand Manning throw it away after 2-3 seconds, it could be a long day.

The point is we have plenty of other receiving big receiving threats without JT; I can think of four, plus legit additional receivers in Dreesen and Tamme. What we DON'T have is any more blockers apart from them and Moreno. I mean, really, if all we need to win is as many receivers as possible, let's bench Moreno, too and go five-wide with Caldwell or Holliday; anyone see any potential problems there...?

If JT has 5 TDs, KC loses by 30 and we lose PFM for the season, even a win is worse than three losses, because our season's in the tank, and Manning might retire rather than come back for more of the same.

Originally Posted by Joel

If their LBs beat teams with coverage that would reassure me far more. The author of the ESPN article Carol just linked seems to strongly feel Berry will cover JT like he did Witten and every other good receiving TE they've faced, which is fine with me because leaving two Pro Bowl WRs plus Decker one-on-one DOES create opportunities.

Of course, that's what we've been hearing all along but it hasn't been as completely overwhelming the past month as DBs copied Indys press coverage and refs let everyone play "bump and bump" 15 yds downfield. Whenever that happens PFM needs just a bit longer to throw (apparently PI and Defensive Holding can't be called within 10 yds of the LoS either.) If that leads to strip-sacks prompting fans to angrily demand Manning throw it away after 2-3 seconds, it could be a long day.

The point is we have plenty of other receiving big receiving threats without JT; I can think of four, plus legit additional receivers in Dreesen and Tamme. What we DON'T have is any more blockers apart from them and Moreno. I mean, really, if all we need to win is as many receivers as possible, let's bench Moreno, too and go five-wide with Caldwell or Holliday; anyone see any potential problems there...?

If JT has 5 TDs, KC loses by 30 and we lose PFM for the season, even a win is worse than three losses, because our season's in the tank, and Manning might retire rather than come back for more of the same.

This notion that a potential Manning injury is strictly based on whether Dreesen plays or Thomas plays is asinine.

Even if it DID happen, to pin it on playing one tight end over another is asinine. And the spam is getting old.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

This notion that a potential Manning injury is strictly based on whether Dreesen plays or Thomas plays is asinine.

There's a large and real difference between one of the teams, if not leagues, best blocking TEs and one who's blocking is pitiful. If our QB weren't limping, we hadn't given up a strip-sack for points in our last three games and the Chiefs didn't lead the NFL in forcing turnovers it might not be a big deal, but since all those things are documented indisputable facts, it is. Julius Thomas is not our offenses indispensable piece, PFM is.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

Even if it DID happen, to pin it on playing one tight end over another is asinine. And the spam is getting old.

I mentioned him in all of ONE sentence in a four paragraph post about blocking being the key to winning tomorrow, and the alternatives to him in all of ONE other. Not sure how that's spam.

We hear it from every team every week, sometimes as false bravado and sometimes sincerely: We'll win if we avoid turnovers. This is the first time I can recall when I both firmly believed that yet seriously worried we wouldn't be ABLE to avoid those turnovers. Or run on a bad run D. Or keep our QB healthy. There's more to football than just getting as many deep receiving threats as possible, then blitzing on D.

Originally Posted by Joel

There's a large and real difference between one of the teams, if not leagues, best blocking TEs and one who's blocking is pitiful. If our QB weren't limping, we hadn't given up a strip-sack for points in our last three games and the Chiefs didn't lead the NFL in forcing turnovers it might not be a big deal, but since all those things are documented indisputable facts, it is. Julius Thomas is not our offenses indispensable piece, PFM is.

We hear it from every team every week, sometimes as false bravado and sometimes sincerely: We'll win if we avoid turnovers. This is the first time I can recall when I both firmly believed that yet seriously worried we wouldn't be ABLE to avoid those turnovers. Or run on a bad run D. Or keep our QB healthy. There's more to football than just getting as many deep receiving threats as possible, then blitzing on D.

And removing one of our weapons from the field doesn't guarantee Manning doesn't get hit. Keeping him out there doesn't guarantee that he does get injured.

You've used causation the entire week and causation isn't there. In fact, it's not even logical. And you've spammed the board.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

And removing one of our weapons from the field doesn't guarantee Manning doesn't get hit. Keeping him out there doesn't guarantee that he does get injured.

You've used causation the entire week and causation isn't there. In fact, it's not even logical. And you've spammed the board.

It's more probability and quantity than strict causality, but works causally, too: Against 3 Pro Bowl pass rushers it's practically guaranteed he'll get hit SOME, but LESS if our blocking greatly improves. Otherwise, once again, why have any TEs; why not just go 5-wide every down? Why not start the best running and receiving RB we've got (or none) whether he can pick up blitzes or not?

Clark's given up a blindside strip-sack in our last three games, costing us points each time; with two Pro Bowlers coming straight at him on a team with the most takeaways, I won't say it's CERTAIN he'll have (at least) one more unless he gets help, but it's pretty freakin' likely, yes? And every time Manning's hit there's a chance he's injured (or rather, further injured; it's already happened more than once,) so reducing the total number of hits he takes from a team that's marched to 9-0 hitting QBs and forcing turnovers is a very desirable thing. I'd rather run it down their throat and avoid the whole issue, but that takes blocking, too.

I could (sort of) understand arguing JT will step it up this week; there's not much supporting evidence, but it would at least acknowledge the need. Implying it doesn't matter either way is harder to comprehend.

Now, if ya'll want to talk about something else in a thread on breaking down the Chiefs, fine; again, I only mentioned TEs twice (and JT only once) in a four paragraph response, and only because blocking is how I think we break down the Chiefs. If the point is this isn't an Orange Julius thread and shouldn't be made one, I wholeheartedly agree and will be more than happy to not mention him again in the thread.

Originally Posted by Joel

It's more probability and quantity than strict causality, but works causally, too: Against 3 Pro Bowl pass rushers it's practically guaranteed he'll get hit SOME, but LESS if our blocking greatly improves. Otherwise, once again, why have any TEs; why not just go 5-wide every down? Why not start the best running and receiving RB we've got (or none) whether he can pick up blitzes or not?

Clark's given up a blindside strip-sack in our last three games, costing us points each time; with two Pro Bowlers coming straight at him on a team with the most takeaways, I won't say it's CERTAIN he'll have (at least) one more unless he gets help, but it's pretty freakin' likely, yes? And every time Manning's hit there's a chance he's injured (or rather, further injured; it's already happened more than once,) so reducing the total number of hits he takes from a team that's marched to 9-0 hitting QBs and forcing turnovers is a very desirable thing.

I could (sort of) understand arguing JT will step it up this week; there's not much supporting evidence, but it would at least acknowledge the need. Implying it doesn't matter either way is harder to comprehend.

No. Clark gave up ONE strip-sack. He gave up ONE. Yes, there were three, but not all were given up by the same guy.

Watch the damn games.

I just want you guys to destroy the Chiefs.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

No. Clark gave up ONE strip-sack. He gave up ONE. Yes, there were three, but not all were given up by the same guy.

Watch the damn games.

Um... WHAT?! Clark's still 75, right? So which two of the following three sacks 75 gave up do you contend Clark DIDN'T allow?

1) Mathis' http://www.colts.com/news/article-1/...9-68ab6206ed4b
2) Orakpos http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...ered-by-Orakpo or
3) Williams' http://www.chargers.com/multimedia/v...d-dce882417991

I see 75s man beat him, hit PFM from behind and force a fumble THREE TIMES in as many games; same thing I saw "watch[ing] the games." A safety+2 short TD drives. Who did YOU see give up the strip-sacks...?

Now, after Orakpos strip-sack I didn't see anyone—including Clark—allow another in that game, but watching it revealed why: http://www.gettyimages.no/detail/new...hoto/187127755