The Difference Between Us and The Bengals...

[Charge!]

well the major difference is the Bengals have been able to shed their loser mentality which we continue to embrace with ferocity

the Chiefs were overrated all season and we should have easily beat them twice - instead we beat ourselves at Sofi with our loser mentality. I'm a big numbers and statistics guy, but you need to know how to apply the numbers in your favor, which our head coach does not yet understand. Going for it repeatedly on fourth down is a perpetuation of our organization's loser mentality, it's a panic move and akin to playing scared.

The one thing most forget about is that there is a reason that we were in so many 4th down situations:

That means we failed to get a first down or score on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd down....... some were droppes.....some were penalties..... but alot were the design of the plays were not designed to get the first down or score...... too many times we were dumping off balls short of the line to gain...... and if defense was expecting the dump off, they quickly made those tackles and then it was 4th down.....

honestly, many of our 3rd down calls seemed as though we were anticipating going for it on 4th down..... so we threw it short on 3rd down......

[Steve]

The one thing most forget about is that there is a reason that we were in so many 4th down situations:

That means we failed to get a first down or score on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd down....... some were droppes.....some were penalties..... but alot were the design of the plays were not designed to get the first down or score...... too many times we were dumping off balls short of the line to gain...... and if defense was expecting the dump off, they quickly made those tackles and then it was 4th down.....

honestly, many of our 3rd down calls seemed as though we were anticipating going for it on 4th down..... so we threw it short on 3rd down......

This is just silliness.

The 3rd down thing for our offense came down to inconsistent execution and not being a good enough O to dictate to the other team. Taking what the defense gives you is fine to a point, but it also means they are controlling the pace and situations in the game. Our running game often got 1st downs or put us in position to convert. But when they got behind schedule due to lost yardage or no gain plays, 2nd and 3rd down calls would often not keep pace.

We didn't call plays with the idea of dumping the ball off short. But if the defenses decide to defend the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd options, there isn't a lot left. You either force the ball into coverage or dump it off. Every play is designed that way (with a few end of game type exceptions).

If we want to NOT be in the position to go for it on 4th down so much, we need to improve the 1st and 2nd down efficiency. Positive yardage to stay on schedule. And another huge help is getting better players at TE and 3rd WR (3rd and 4th receiver positions), so that defenses can't matchup well enough to stop all our offensive options.

There are typically 7 guys in coverage, 4 guys rushing on D. If a defense wants to, they can double cover 2 receivers (there are 6 eligible receivers, but with the QB removed, that leaves 5 in the pattern), but if they want to double them all, you either need to rush fewer or leave them one on one. We won a lot of those 1 on 1 battles, but we can do a lot better.

As I have said in a lot of other threads, too many times defenses would also blitz an additional defender, and Ekeler was needed to either pick up the blitz or to chip on his way out, which again limits him as a receiver. Getting more help at RB would dramatically improve our explosiveness if he is either 1 of 2 RB in the backfield, or if he could be put out wide or in the slot. The season he had 93 catches, we used him outside a fair bit, and a disproportionate number of his TD were from those formations. Ekeler is a very good RB, but he is an even better offensive weapon. There is no reason to stop using him in the backfeild, but that doesn't mean we can't move him around. IF nothing else, it forces defenses to spend a lot of extra time figuring out ways to cover him.

The other big thing is just being a better running team. An awful lot of our running plays get a defender getting a lot of inital penetration, but it is the pursuit that gets the RB. That means we need to do a better job of blocking at WR and the backside of the OL. IT's great that we have a go to side, but it was pretty predictible. We gashed teams badly late in the season when we got some production out of the right side of the line, but the overall confidence was not there to sustain things. We will never be a running team, with Herbert and our receiving options. But if we can force teams to make adjustments to account for our running game, it means that is less they can do to defend the passing game. If nothing else, it means they are reacting to us, instead of dictating the game to us.

[Cdn Bolt]

Again, I don't know what you mean by very aggressive. Yes, they signed 3 players. That is a pretty good haul for FA and that many in 1 year don't necessarily happen.

There are 3 UFA on the chief's starting groups. Mike Burton, who I wouldn't actually consider a starter since he hardly plays (Fullback). Hitchens signed in 2018. Mathieu signed in 2019. Mathieu has been good from the start, but Hitchens has been a marginal starter for KC, and is not playing at nearly the level he did for Dallas. I think the players you are thinking about are mostly the player's KC has traded for (Orlando Brown, Frank Clark, Charvarius Ward, Mike Hughes and Mel Ingram). They also have 2 college FA they signed (Sorensen and Pringle) and 1 street FA (Jarran Reed).

He said on their SB team and he is right. Frank Clark was an addition either way. They also added starters in S Tyrann Mathieu, DE Alex Okafor and CB Brashaud Breeland as well. Their rebuilt secondary in fact was 3/4 FA when they won the SB.

So 4 trades or FA signings in one offseason

FYI Telesco sat on his hands as usual adding only washed up LB Tomas Davis and we went 5-11. Tale of 2 teams.

[beachcomber]

the year of the yang black water tiger....

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/01/1077226638/cincinnati-bengals-lunar-new-year

[PR#1]

We have 9 years of telesco and they don't

[Steve]

He said on their SB team and he is right. Frank Clark was an addition either way. They also added starters in S Tyrann Mathieu, DE Alex Okafor and CB Brashaud Breeland as well. Their rebuilt secondary in fact was 3/4 FA when they won the SB.

So 4 trades or FA signings in one offseason

FYI Telesco sat on his hands as usual adding only washed up LB Tomas Davis and we went 5-11. Tale of 2 teams.

I have no problem with additions, but THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU ADD THEM MATTERS.

The fact that you made additions is not the same as doing it via FA. FA doesn't work. People love to point to the exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions. The rule is that it doesn't work.

UFA additions are high risk, expensive, and not a particularly effective method of filling a hole because in most cases players at best are only very marginal. Again, go through the FA lists year after year, most are a waste of time and money. There are certainly some FA signings that work, but most don't. So all this nonsense about we "HAVE TO BE AGGRESSIVE" means that for the most part, you are just pissing money away to get a player who will not fix anything AND spend a lot of money you might want back for other players later on.

Trading for players, on the other hand, is a much higher chance. Typically, I think it works out fairly well. Again, nothing is 100% one way or the other, but when a player gets traded, it is usually at least some kind of snub to their ego, and it forces them to refocus and work really hard if nothing else to prove to people his old team made a mistake.

The only way FA would work for us is if we have the guts to bring in FA and then make them compete for their starting job and be willing to get rid of FA who don't make the cut. The Chargers have proven they do exactly the opposite. Again, I point to the Slausson and Woodhead podcast where they pointed to Franklin not being benched ( I am inferring Franklin, because Slausson wouldn't throw him under the bus, but it was him).

Denver had a good run with FA because they made it a case of all FA were there to make the SB, and if they didn't win, they were willing to blow the thing up and start over. I just don't think the Chargers have the street credit to run that type of operation yet.

FA is a great thing for fans, because they get the illusion of progress. But most fans don't follow how things work for their FA, so the fact that this season's FA didn't work, .. that's an exception, they will be OK next year when they get used to the system. Then next year, they better play better or else... then year 3, this is a make it or break it season ... and then they do get cut, and with all the extra cap space ... the process repeats itself. Then fans look back and think, that guy was great when he played for team X, he just sucked for us, and we rinse and repeat.

Again, everyone keeps telling me that there are all these great RT prospects, yet there is only 1 RT who is a FA who is worth a shit and under the age of 30. That is Trent Brown, who was a successful FA for NE, but a bust in LV and his original team, SF. There are only a couple of others who are even as good as the players we have, so the only 2 that are an obvious upgrade are Morgan Moses and Dennis Kelly. Both are like 32-33, Morgan has a lot of dings and Kelly has only 1 year of starting experience, in an offense that uses much different pass protection than we do. \

Go look at the FA list on OTC and tell me how many players are available who are on the wrong side of 30? How many of the ones under 30 have you even ever heard of? Google, them, can you even find anything about them? Most of them are marginal, edge of roster guys who simply aren't any better than the usual camp bodies we bring in.

[AK47]

Defense.

-played to their max talent potential for consecutive games
-has a real home crowd advantage
-power run game
-plays in a weaker division
-and yes Defense....peaking at right time.

[Cdn Bolt]

I have no problem with additions, but THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU ADD THEM MATTERS.

The fact that you made additions is not the same as doing it via FA. FA doesn't work. People love to point to the exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions. The rule is that it doesn't work.

UFA additions are high risk, expensive, and not a particularly effective method of filling a hole because in most cases players at best are only very marginal. Again, go through the FA lists year after year, most are a waste of time and money. There are certainly some FA signings that work, but most don't. So all this nonsense about we "HAVE TO BE AGGRESSIVE" means that for the most part, you are just pissing money away to get a player who will not fix anything AND spend a lot of money you might want back for other players later on.

Trading for players, on the other hand, is a much higher chance. Typically, I think it works out fairly well. Again, nothing is 100% one way or the other, but when a player gets traded, it is usually at least some kind of snub to their ego, and it forces them to refocus and work really hard if nothing else to prove to people his old team made a mistake.

.

The Chiefs made 1 trade and added 3 FA. so it made a difference to them as they won the SB in 2019. They couldn't have done it w out FA. Maybe overall it it doesn't work so well as you claim but it sure worked for them. Sammy Watkins was another earlier FA who helped.

Either way, Telesco doesn't seem to do enough where other teams use FA to their advantage as the Chiefs and many other teams as OP listed show, I know looking at BUF getting Stephon Diggs made a huge difference in their SB run up too.

[BoltBacker]

LAC 30th run D
Cin 5th run D

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team QB Sacked Percentage | TeamRankings.com

Chargers ranked third in the NFL protecting the QB, Bengals ranked 31st. The truth is Burrrow was lucky to make it through the season healthy. The Bengals were lucky to be in a beat-up division with Baltimore and Cleveland having all kinds of issues. The ball bounced right for them and they took advantage of it, props to them. I don't feel they're any better than us and with the same progression we can as probable be in the Superbowl as soon as next year.

Chiefs fans have more to worry about, they don't intimidate anyone, their dominance is past. Bills, Chargers, Bengals all have prosperous futures.

[KrazyLegs]

Again, look at the FA lists year after year, the odds are against you finding much, if any help in FA. Everyone can point to it, but unless you can show the overall numbers, FA is simply more of a waste than a help.

For every season where we (or the Bengals, or whoever) have a successful year, there are more down and neutral years and a lot of cap space spent, so we don't get ahead, and often are set back when we are stuck dumping the player before we are ready to. The majority of early FA signings (early or late) just don't work. You don't get the players that you think you are getting, most of the time.

If that's the case, then are you conceding that Chargers are at least 2-3 years away from competing for a title?

Because it's hard to see rebuilding this D strictly through next year's draft. Too many holes, very poor depth. And we still have a couple needs on offense, too.

Unless, you think TT just knocks it out of the park with multiple home-run picks. Which, to me, is far more unlikely than him hitting on a couple of key FAs.

(FTR, I disagree with you. I think a GM needs to make judicious use of FA, drafts and trades.)

[Steve]

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team QB Sacked Percentage | TeamRankings.com

Chargers ranked third in the NFL protecting the QB, Bengals ranked 31st. The truth is Burrrow was lucky to make it through the season healthy. The Bengals were lucky to be in a beat-up division with Baltimore and Cleveland having all kinds of issues. The ball bounced right for them and they took advantage of it, props to them. I don't feel they're any better than us and with the same progression we can as probable be in the Superbowl as soon as next year.

Chiefs fans have more to worry about, they don't intimidate anyone, their dominance is past. Bills, Chargers, Bengals all have prosperous futures.

They actually did more than that. Progress is not necessarily a linear thing. They have been building this team throughout the whole Taylor regime. THey only got everything to come together this year. So, a lot of the players that were a big part of this season came in the last few years.

It is also worth noting that while a lot of stuff sucks for us now, we finished 1 game behind them in the regular season. If we had won the 2nd KC game and then would probably need the 2nd Raider game, we would have won the division. No team is perfect and I think a big part of why we play Staley's D is that you don't have to have elite players all over the D to be good. The Rams certainly didn't have elite players anywhere but Donald, and they were the #1 D last year.

[Steve]

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team QB Sacked Percentage | TeamRankings.com

Chargers ranked third in the NFL protecting the QB, Bengals ranked 31st. The truth is Burrrow was lucky to make it through the season healthy. The Bengals were lucky to be in a beat-up division with Baltimore and Cleveland having all kinds of issues. The ball bounced right for them and they took advantage of it, props to them. I don't feel they're any better than us and with the same progression we can as probable be in the Superbowl as soon as next year.

Chiefs fans have more to worry about, they don't intimidate anyone, their dominance is past. Bills, Chargers, Bengals all have prosperous futures.

QB are a big part of the pass protection. If they don't hold the ball, and throw it away, you can avoid a lot of sacks. Herbert and Lombardi's quick passing had a lot to do with how good our pass protection was, and how many sacks we gave up.