Earlier this week, America was treated to the highest scoring Monday Night Football game of all time – an entertaining affair in which the Los Angeles Rams outlasted the Kansas City Chiefs by a 54-51 score (gamebook) (box score). The game featured 1001 yards of offense (539 of them in the second half) and 14 touchdowns – 1 rushing, 10 passing, and 3 defensive scores.
In the aftermath, I have been wondering if we really learned anything from the game. As the game began, it was assumed that both of the average defenses on the field would be hard pressed to keep up with the elite offenses they would be facing.
The Chiefs came into the game as the league’s second highest scoring team – averaging 35.3 points a game. They were number three in total offense, and fourth in passing yards behind quarterback Patrick Mahomes – who came into the week with a league-leading 31 touchdown passes. They would line up against a Ram defense that was allowing 23.1 points per game and was notably vulnerable to the run. They ranked twenty-fourth, allowing 122.1 yards per game on the ground, and 5.2 yards per rush.
For their part, the Rams offense came into the tilt ranked second in yards per game and second in running the football, averaging 144.8 ground yards a game. They were also football’s third highest scoring team – at 33.5 points per game – with their young quarterback Jared Goff directing the league’s fifth most prolific passing attack. Kansas City’s answer was a defense that ranked only twenty-third at stopping the run (121.7 yards per game, and 5.1 per rush), twenty-eighth at stopping the pass, and twenty-ninth overall. They were allowing 24 points a game.
Perhaps the extent of the scoring would be unexpected, but the general anticipation was of a game somewhere in the neighborhood of 42-37 or thereabouts.
So, I thought that I would look through the numbers from the game and see what surprised me. First I saw the three interceptions from Mahomes – Patrick had thrown only 7 all year, so that was unexpected. Of course, he hasn’t been behind in the last two minutes of too many games.
Then I noted the rushing numbers. For the Chiefs, just 98 yards, while the Rams were held to just 76. How, you would wonder, would two teams who had pronounced difficulty stopping the run hold two of the NFL’s most prolific running attacks to less than 100 yards?
The answer is that they didn’t. Essentially, Los Angeles and Kansas City shut down their own running attacks. The Chiefs ran just 20 times and the Rams just 21 (including two kneel downs).
This, then, becomes my most valuable take-away from this game. In a contest in which either team could have taken charge by turning to their running attack, neither chose to. Understanding that the evening would probably be a showcase for two nearly unstoppable passing attacks, both teams bought into the challenge and answered throw for throw. For as balanced as both of these teams have been all year, when push comes to shove, they turn first to their passing attack. With just under ten minutes left in the third quarter, Kareem Hunt carried the ball on consecutive plays. They gained 14 yards. It was the only time in the entire game that either team ran the ball on consecutive downs.
This is especially insightful as it regards Kansas City. As the game wore on and the Rams defensive line began to completely disregard the running game, they notably increased the pressure on Mahomes. Four of the five KC turnovers (all connected to the passing game) occurred in the games second half.
At any point, Kansas City could have re-centered themselves and taken over the game with Hunt – exploiting the Rams most noted weakness (explained more in depth here). But they didn’t. Somewhere along the line they decided that they would conquer or perish on Mahomes strong right arm. The Rams, I am convinced, would have made a similar decision.
It is – if you think about it – a kind of hubris. It’s almost as though running the ball was an act of cowardice. What the evening evolved into was a game of aerial chicken, with neither team willing to disgrace itself by turning to the running game – even though that likely would have been the most direct path to victory.
So, if I’m a future opponent of either of these teams, I would understand that this is their psychology. Both of these teams feel best about themselves when they are throwing the ball, and neither really has the patience to beat you by consistently running the ball.
Beating the Rams or the Chiefs will be a challenge for anyone, but here is how my game plan would set up:
Most important is to shorten the game. Keep the possessions to a minimum. Running the ball against these teams is a must. You will have to commit to running the ball – even if you fall behind by a little bit early. Keep running. Both of these defenses are vulnerable to a disciplined running attack. Work the clock. Let these quarterbacks cool their jets on the sidelines.
Defensively, I don’t think I would play much zone at all against either team. That would be too easy for them. I would play mostly man defenses, with a feature on pressure. About the only time either of these passing attacks were stopped Monday night was when they had pressure. As you do this, you are accepting the fact that you will give up the occasional big play. Playing man against either of these teams is fraught with peril. But the virtue of a pressure-based defense is that whatever happens on the possession, it will happen quickly. You’ll get burned for the quick touchdown, you’ll get the interception, you’ll get the quick three-and-out, but you won’t be getting those 11-play, 87-yard, 6:30 drives against you.
The overriding concept is long, clock-consuming drives by your offense, briefly interrupted by very quick possessions by the Rams or Chiefs. As game plans go, I admit it’s less than perfect, but I think it gives the best chance.
What you don’t want to do – unless you are New Orleans – is engage these teams in aerial warfare. That just doesn’t work out.