It's A Matter Of Time
What is the #1 tennant of Herm Edwards offensive philosophy?
Run the clock, keep the defense off the field.
The clock must keep moving. The reason Herm talks about running the ball so much is because by doing that the clock keeps ticking. The reason he wants the clock to keep ticking is because he knows that the longer a defense has to play, the more tired they get and the more they fall victim to big plays.
So the team philosophy Herm espouses daily is: "Defense get off the field, Offense stay on." The Yang to this Ying is that the opposing teams offense is off the field and not scoring points while their defense is on the field getting tired and making mistakes.
This is essentially what it means to have a "Conservative" Philosophy. Time must continue to pass by. Long, deep passes are fantastic, but it is a play with a low percentage chance of success and if it fails, the clock stops. So instead, running the ball or completing short, high percentage passes advances the unit down the field and keeps the clock ticking.
This is not to say, of course, that we will never see any deep passes. There are times when you can bury your opponent mentally by crushing their spirit with a nice 50 yard TD pass. If your Defense is keeping their end of the deal up and keeping the opposing offense off the field, they are rested enough to go right back out. But this isn't Vermeils Flying Circus anymore.
Some have been critical of the short passing game exhibited primarily in the Cardinals game when the starters were playing, but let's take a look at the Time of Possession when the starters were in both preseason games:

Time of Possession
Preseason Game 1 - 1st Quarter - 15:00
KC - 10:03
Chicago - 4:57
Preseason Game 2 - 1st Half - 30:00
KC - 23:45
Arizona - 6:15
Imagine if this were the regular season and we were eating up clock like that. The first drive against Chicago was 16 plays, 8:45 and the next time we got the ball we went 3 and out. What if we had pushed another 6 or 7 minute drive? It could easily have happened.
Against Arizona, we had offensive possession of the ball nearly 4 times as long as the Cardinals did. Because it is preseason and they were playing 3rd and 4th stringers in the second half, we did not get to see the fruitages of such a lopsided Time of Possession, but if this were a regular season game where they were playing their starters the entire game, can you imagine what being on the field that long would do to their defense? How soft it would be in the second half and especially the 4th quarter? And this was with two quick 3 and outs in between 6+minute drives! Had they been able to extend those 3 and outs how much bigger difference would the ToP have been?
Now think about our first regular season game against the Patriots. How can the Chiefs possibly win a shoot-out against the most explosive offense in the NFL last year? Simple. We can't.
But remember the #1 tennant of the conservative philosophy. Run the clock, keep the defense AND the opposing offense off the field. If they aren't on the field, they can't score.
The second reason (aside from keeping your defense fresh) is to limit the number of possessions (i.e. chances to score) your opponent has. If we are succesful in running time off the clock, the number of chances Tom Terrific and Randy Moss have to weave their magic are lessened.
Let's say the Chiefs are succesful in running time off the clock and instead of getting say an average of 15 drives in a game, they only get 10. All of a sudden (Hermism), every time your defense is succesful in stopping them, that stop is much more valuable. If for the sake of argument, our well rested defense is succesful in preventing the Patriots from scoring a touchdown 70% of the time, that means in the shortened game, they only score 21 points instead of 28.
What is Herms "magic number" of points he would like to score? Twenty Four. If the offense hits its target points with the benefit of a tired opposing defense, winning the time of possession battle is the difference between winning and losing this game.
This is all hypothetical of course. The offense will likely have the same or close to number of possessions as the other team and we still must make good on those opportunities and until we do and until we can reliably run clock and not go 3 and out, its not going to work. But it is the goal. And by the looks of what Chan Gailey has been able to accomplish with the starters thus far in the preseason, it looks like we may be getting closer.
Maybe its not as exciting to, as one critical fan said, "dink and dunk" your way down the field, but if both sides of the ball are doing their part, this clock managment conservative philosophy is a tried and true path to victory.
0 recs |
16
comments
Comments
I agree
We already started to see LJ bust off some longer runs in the 2nd quarter after the Arizona D had been on the field for a while. I bet we would have seen more of an impact in the 3rd/4th quarter if it were a regular season game and the 1st team were on the field the whole game.
I’ve been impressed with our ability to string together some long drives, not only in distance but ToP as well. I find it plenty exciting to see us eat field and clock, especially when it ends in points.
by Ochophosphate on Aug 19, 2008 10:46 PM CDT 0 recs
The long drives are very encouraging
When you lead the league in three and outs like we did last year, the exact thing you want to see are longer drives.
by Chris on
Aug 20, 2008 6:16 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Ohhhhhhhh....
This stuff is getting me excited for the game and the possibilities…Can’t wait for football games that matter…
The Pats defense is definately not a strength in any sense…I think if you can get sustained drives it is gonna be very possible to make this at least a good game…I think people will be surprised by us after week 1…
by woodman212 on Aug 20, 2008 3:37 AM CDT 0 recs
If preseason is any indicator
Their D looks awful (Pats). They got demolished by Tampa Bay in their last preseason game, especially their 1st team D. I don’t know if they’re getting too old, too smug, or they just don’t care about the preseason so they didn’t give 100% or what. I don’t think it was just that Tampa was that amazing.
I would love to start out with a win, especially over the Fatriots.
by Ochophosphate on
Aug 20, 2008 7:17 AM CDT
up
0 recs
"The Pats defense is definately not a strength in any sense"?
The NE defense was 4th in the league in yards allowed, 2nd in sacks, T-6th in INTs, and 8th in forced fumbles (13th in recovered).
Now, I hate New England as much as anyone, but to say their defense isn’t a strength might be a little overkill.
by stlfan on
Aug 20, 2008 11:31 AM CDT
up
0 recs
the past is past
go watch their 1’s play in this preseason… they’ve looked like poo so far.
I fully expect them to turn it around in the regular season, but so far they look old and slow.
by Ochophosphate on
Aug 20, 2008 1:32 PM CDT
up
0 recs
OK
I haven’t seen them play…so you could very well be right. Taking a look at the stats, I’ll use the same ones as before, they are 3rd in the league in yards allowed, T-5th in sacks, T-16th in INTs, and T-2nd in forced fumbles (T-5th in recovered.) Still looks pretty good stat-wise. Like I said, I haven’t seen them play.
by stlfan on
Aug 20, 2008 2:26 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Yes
that is what I was getting at….
Their defense has been strong in the past, even last year, but it is certainly a concern this year with their age and their key losses in both talent (Asante Samuel) and leadership (Junior Seau)…
by woodman212 on
Aug 20, 2008 4:57 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Part of that could be contributed to
The fact that they had all their games won (save the DAL game) in the first half by the time they faced Indy in week 9.
Why try and score when you’re up 48-7 (ask Joe Gibbs)?
by primetime 07 on
Aug 20, 2008 1:40 PM CDT
up
0 recs
If you get
scored on twice in the first quarter or so, your team is out of the game. That philosophy won’t hunt. That is exactly why Herm is doomed to failure in K.C. Even though I hope he is not.
by G.L. on Aug 20, 2008 6:27 AM CDT 0 recs
Thats why
the philosophy requires us to have a dominant defense and why Herm babys the defense so much. You HAVE to be able to keep the game close. From things Herm has said in the past, he wants the offense to have shoot-out ability, but so that if the D has a bad game, they can stay in it, but overall the Chiefs need to be the ones setting the tempo of the game.
by ChiefDJ on
Aug 20, 2008 6:32 AM CDT
up
0 recs
I understand that Herm
was a defensive back, and that he wants to keep the defense off the field as much as possible. But when has Herm ever said he wants the offense to be able to shoot it out with another team? All I have ever heard him say is the much quoted “thats a lot of points”, etc. My personal opinion is that the defense is paid to play the entire game, give their all physically and mentally on the field, and be prepared to win the game (or do their part) in any manner necessary. They are professional athletes. Professional athletes do more than “make plays” to borrow a phrase. They do what is required to win the game no matter what the circumstances. If the coaching philosophy has already put you out of the reach of a win, that is hard to do.
by G.L. on Aug 20, 2008 8:05 AM CDT 0 recs
If we didn't want to have the potential to win a shoot-out
we wouldn’t have spent our 1st round pick last year on a WR…
by PVChiefsfan on
Aug 20, 2008 8:44 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Herms philosophy
After they had fired Solari and were searching for a new Offensive Coordinator Herm was asked what he wanted the new Chiefs offense to look like and essentially said (not a direct quote) “We want to run the ball and control the clock, but you also have to have the ability to score points in a hurry. If you’re going against a team that scores a lot and they get ahead of you quick, you have to be able to run with them”. It was in the KC Star, Ill have to dig around to find it.
But thats the whole point. Herms philosophy is how, when he is in control of the game, he wants it played. But it would be foolish to think that you would still do that when you get behind by two or three scores. We passed the ball a ton last year. Part of that was because we were having a hard time running it, but also because we were frequently working from behind.
And then theres just the fact that some teams are designed to be high powered. The conservative philosophy is the right one to beat a team like New England or Indianapolis, but if your defense is not doing its part in keeping those guys off the field and from scoring points, your offense MUST have the ability to score points in a hurry too, if only just to stay in the game.
But don’t expect the Chiefs to be the team that instigates the shoot out.
by ChiefDJ on
Aug 20, 2008 6:09 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Dwayne Bowe
was a great choice, but why was it the ball was sometimes never thrown his way last year until after the second half had begun. Too little, too late? Very much so. It was not all Solari’s fault, either.
by G.L. on Aug 20, 2008 9:31 AM CDT 0 recs
It's not like we are the Ravens from several years ago
our offense has superstars and barring the sucktastic o-line play of 2007, is capable of scoring a lot of points if the game dictates that…but that’s not how we would prefer to try and win.
by PVChiefsfan on
Aug 20, 2008 11:15 AM CDT
up
0 recs













