Mellinger Minutes: Chiefs’ best (and worst) playoff paths, Royals’ rebuild, snow days!
As of Monday, the Chiefs were tied with the Seahawks with the fifth-best odds of winning the Super Bowl.
The pros at Westgate had the Chiefs 8/1, behind New England (7/1) and Baltimore (5/2) in the AFC and New Orleans (9/2) and San Francisco (6/1) overall.
Those Patriots odds are being boosted by the brand name, but otherwise it’s a good list.
A year ago, just for reference’s sake, the Chiefs were tied with the Jaguars and Falcons at 20/1. Six teams had better odds, including the favored Patriots (2/1).
So in that way, Vegas gives the Chiefs a better chance of getting to the Super Bowl now than last year. That, too, seems about right but for different reasons. The Patriots were so heavily favored last year that they skewed everyone’s odds. The Chiefs are significantly improved on defense this year, which should give them a chance.
At the moment, the Chiefs would be the No. 3 seed, hosting the Steelers in the wild card round. A win there would put them at New England for the divisional round, and a win there would likely mean the Ravens in the AFC Championship game.
With that in mind, I’ve come up with what I believe is the Chiefs’ best and worst path to the Super Bowl.
If the Chiefs stay at the No. 3 seed, much of the difference in their Super Bowl path’s difficultly would come in the first opponent: most likely the Steelers, Bills, Texans or Titans.
As it happens, I’d rank the Chiefs’ preference of opponent in that order.
The Steelers have done well to stay in the postseason race, and have one of the league’s best defenses but haven’t scored more than 23 points since Nov. 3 and haven’t made it to 30 all season. You’d take your chances against Devlin Hodges in the playoffs.
The Bills are basically a better version of the Steelers — led by defense, and slowed on offense. Their defense is better than the Steelers in traditional measurements, but slightly behind in advanced metrics like DVOA. They’re better offensively, though, with rookie running back Devin Singletary, the speedy John Brown, and the tough Josh Allen.
The Texans would probably be most people’s pick as the toughest opponent, and for good reason: Deshaun Watson is the best quarterback on the board, and the roster is talented. The Texans have wins at Arrowhead, at Tennessee, and against the Patriots and Colts (they also lost at Indianapolis).
But I’m choosing the Titans as the hardest matchup because we’ve seen what Derrick Henry does against the Chiefs, and Ryan Tannehill is playing some honest-to-goodness good quarterback. They’re 11th in scoring and eighth in points against, and they rank fifth with 4.8 yards per rush — in Tannehill’s eight starts Henry has 913 yards and 5.8 per carry.
So to me, the hardest path might be staying at the No. 3 seed and having to beat the Titans in the first game, and then win at Foxborough* and Baltimore to get to the Super Bowl.
*Brady and Belichick have never lost to the same team twice at home in the same season, a fact we’d undoubtedly hear about a million times that week.
If the Chiefs drop to No. 4 they’d likely play the Bills in the first round, and then would play at Baltimore unless the No. 6 seed beats the No. 3 seed (which would likely be Houston).
Of course, there is still a chance for the Chiefs to rise to the No. 2 seed. They’d need the Patriots to lose to the Bills at home (New England opened as a 7-point favorite) or against the Dolphins at home (lol).
Whatever it’s worth, The New York Times’ playoff simulator gives the Chiefs around a coin flip’s chance of getting a first-round bye if they win out.
At that point, the path becomes much more manageable. They’d be able to rest a week, then play at home against (probably) the Patriots or Texans. Then the AFC Championship game in (probably) Baltimore. That’s a heck of a lot better than having to beat a good team just for the honor playing the Patriots at Gillette again.
Anyway, if your eyes have glazed over, the good news is that all of this will almost certainly be useless in a week.
This week’s eating recommendation is the onion rings at Green Room and the reading recommendation is Tim Rohan on The Fall of Rahsaan Salaam.
Please give me a follow on Twitter and Facebook and as always thanks for your help and thanks for reading.
This is a Chiefs fan!
Football seasons have a way of toying with your emotions. All due respect to a baseball losing streak, and even to a run of bad form in soccer, but maintaining a long-term focus is more difficult in football than any other sport.
The last game can feel like the only thing that matters. The last half. The last quarter. The last play. That’s why Arrowhead Pride’s fan confidence poll is so hilariously volatile.
This is an interesting season in that way, because two things have been true since the season opener: the Chiefs are making the playoffs, and the only thing that matters is whether they can get to the Super Bowl.
My suspicion is that the confidence at the moment is boosted by the despair of winning just twice between Sept. 29 and Nov. 18, but the truth is they’re still likelier to miss the Super Bowl than make it.
Most of that is simple math: six teams will make the playoffs, and barring major injuries or an unforeseen break in form, the Ravens will be the deserved favorite.
But some of it, too, is that even for all of the improvement on defense we’re still just one 12-play, 75-yard, most-of-it-on-the-ground touchdown drive in the playoffs from Chiefs fans freaking out.
Perhaps more importantly, we still haven’t seen the offense perform at or near its 2018 form for a sustained stretch.
We’ll get into the specifics below, but the most heartbreaking playoff loss probably involves getting boss’d by the Ravens and Chiefs fans feeling like the Patriots have been replaced by a younger, faster, and tougher king of the AFC.
There are two acceptable answers here, and they’re interrelated.
The first is the red zone offense. The Chiefs scored just one touchdown in four chances against the Broncos, bringing their season percentage down to 51.1. That’s 24th in the league, a year after converting 71.8 percent. That ranked second in the league.
The other answer is the run defense, because even through this last month of defense varying from very good to dominant, they’re still giving up 4.5 yards per rush. That rate would tie for 21st in the league.
The issues are interrelated because if the offense is scoring touchdowns instead of kicking short field goals, the defense is likelier to be playing from ahead, which means they’re likelier to see more passes, which feeds into their strength.
On the other hand, if the Chiefs are kicking field goals and they’re playing even or from behind, the opposition is likelier to stick with the run.
So some of this depends on the opinion of each unit that you come with. My opinion has always been that the offense needs to be the alpha, both because of the talent and league dynamics that so heavily tilt toward scoring.
And for me, the bulk of that responsibility is on Andy Reid and the offensive line. The Chiefs can overwhelm opponents with talent and speed between the 20s, but as the field shrinks those advantages diminish.
At some point it becomes about the line opening holes, and about Reid finding the right ways to give his guys advantages.
It’s the safeties, and I’m not sure it’s close unless you cheat and say the tight ends because of Travis Kelce.
This horn won’t toot itself, so I’ll just remind you that I spent all last season saying the biggest problem with the defense was a safety group that essentially performed like a roll of wet toilet paper.
They were slow, and lacked awareness, but made up for it by being put in awful positions. I don’t study the other 31 teams to say this absolutely, but it had to be among the worst position groups in the league.
Tyrann Mathieu and Juan Thornhill — and, yes, Steve Spagnuolo — have turned the position into a strength. The safeties are the best position group on the defense, and I’m not sure there’s a better pair in the league.
Daniel Sorensen takes a lot of grief from fans, but he’s been better, too, which logically is an indication of Spagnuolo’s impact. We’ll always have the end of the Chargers game in Mexico City with him.
I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Mathieu has been a transformative presence for the Chiefs. He’s obviously a terrific player, but he has a sort of contagious swagger that’s helped bring along not just Thornhill but cornerback Charvarius Ward and others.
Mathieu has a backstory both personally and professionally that earns respect, and he’s generous with a sharp mind that’s able to break down the offense’s intentions before the play.
Brett Veach hasn’t been able to solve the linebackers, but the personnel acquisition everywhere else on defense has been superb.
I like that you set a lower number than most would. My assumption is that most people would see this and enthusiastically take the over, thinking that Lock will be the long-term solution for the Broncos, but it’s too early to say that with confidence.
Your number is basically three more seasons, assuming health for both quarterbacks, and if Lock gets to three he’s probably getting to five or more.
The Broncos have started seven quarterbacks in the last four seasons. Lock is the best chance of the bunch, and he looked terrific in completing more than 70 percent of his passes in his first two starts, but he also looked confused and overwhelmed in his third start.
The Broncos have not shown themselves to be the kind of place that can help a quarterback gain confidence, and perform. Maybe that’s about to change, but I don’t think it should be blindly assumed.
Now, all that said, I’m still going to take the over. I believe Lock is smart, blessed with enough talent, and able to project the kind of attitude that teammates buy into.
I also believe he’s better than his surroundings have allowed him to show. Courtland Sutton is a good player, and Noah Fant has a chance, but the Broncos need to surround Lock with more playmakers, improve the offensive line, and build a system that maximizes Lock’s talents.
That’s a lot of ifs, and the process will be even more difficult if Jon Gruden gets the Raiders going in Las Vegas.
But to me, Lock is a long-term starting quarterback in the NFL.
I count eight with a chance: Andy Reid, Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce, Tyreek Hill, Mitchell Schwartz, Chris Jones, Frank Clark, and Tyrann Mathieu.
Lets go through the list, generally listed in order of probability.
Reid: There are many who would say he’s a lock if he never coaches another game, and they might be right. He’s seventh in wins, and could be fifth with two more full seasons. He has literally changed how offense is played, and his coaching tree is one of the best in football history. So, sure, maybe he’s in already. But I think he needs to win a Super Bowl or at least get to another before we can say that.
Kelce: I suspect he’s the reason you’re asking this question. He just became the first tight end with four consecutive 1,000-yard seasons, and with 14 catches across the final two games would own two of the six 100-catch seasons by a tight end*.
*Though Zach Ertz caught 116 last season and is currently at 84.
Kelce has been the best or second-best tight end in the league for some time, and should have at least a few more years of his prime. He’s tracking toward the honor, assuming reasonable production the rest of his career.
Mahomes: He’s only 24, so we’re doing a lot of projecting here, but it’s hard to imagine his career not having this sort of path. Only five quarterbacks have won an MVP and not made the Hall of Fame, and Mahomes won an MVP in his first season.
Schwartz: He’s been the best right tackle or close to it for years, and had the longest start and snap streak in the league for a nonspecialist before briefly leaving the Titans game because of a knee injury. I have to be honest, though. Linemen are difficult to judge in these types of things, and even harder to predict. There’s still a stigma on right tackles, for some reason, and my suspicion is that he’d need some more team success to bolster his case.
Hill: He missed 4 1/2 games because of an injury, which is the only reason he’s going to miss a third consecutive 1,000-yard season. He’s still only 25, which makes projections sketchy, but if he stays in this system he’s going to put up a lot of big numbers.
Jones: Also 25, so this is basically all projection. He’s a star and consistent game wrecker but needs to be more reliable against the run to get into a Hall of Fame conversation.
Mathieu: He’s 27, so what if he has six more seasons at or near his peak, and is remembered as the spiritual leader of a defense that helped win a couple Super Bowls?
Clark: Basically, the same argument as Mathieu.
Let me be clear: I am not predicting that all of these guys will make it. Reid, Kelce and Mahomes are the only ones I’d bet on. Schwartz and Hill are interesting, and the three defenders are long shots, each with their eventual cases depending heavily on team success.
But they’re all possible.
I don’t, and that’s doubly true as long as Eric Bieniemy is here.
Bieniemy went hard with Hunt, from what I’ve heard. He had some emotional and intense conversations with Hunt when the problems kept popping up, and from I hear was particularly thorough in asking about the last incident in the hallway.
Hunt lied. Bieniemy believed him. When the video leaked, and the Chiefs could see the truth, they didn’t have much of a choice.
I’ve written this before, and I know this comes off as insensitive but it’s true: the Chiefs cut Hunt for that lie more than they did the video.
Even after everything with Hunt, the Tyreek Hill investigation this summer showed the Chiefs will stick with a player if they feel they can trust him. That was no longer true with Hunt.
All that said, I do understand why many are wondering about this. Hunt is a huge talent, and would help solve a potential playoff flaw.
My theory has been that the Chiefs don’t think he knows the playbook well enough. I don’t just mean remembering routes, but also his feel and accuracy on sight reads, where he has the option of a couple routes based on the defense.
Lets be clear: this is normal rookie stuff.
Because we know he’s healthy, and we know Reid is exactly the kind of coach who can utilize Hardman and Hill at the same time, and we know that Mahomes is the ideal quarterback to make it all click.
The Chiefs, and Reid in particular, talk often of Hardman being smart. And I have no reason to believe he’s not.
But Reid’s offense is notoriously difficult for rookie receivers, and Hardman came late to the position and played at Georgia, where the offense isn’t exactly a starter kit for the NFL.
So I don’t think he’s necessarily behind schedule.
Think about this: Hardman has played 48.2 percent of the snaps on offense so far, which sounds like a small number, but Hill only played 40.7 percent as a rookie.
Another way to do it is to look at rookie receivers under Reid:
DeSean Jackson, 2008: 62 catches, 912 yards, two touchdowns.
Jeremy Maclin, 2009: 56 catches, 773 yards, four touchdowns.
Hill, 2016: 61 catches, 593 yards, six touchdowns.
Reggie Brown, 2005: 43 catches, 571 yards, four touchdowns.
Hank Baskett, 2006: 22 catches, 464 yards, two touchdowns.
Freddie Mitchell, 2001: 21 catches, 283 yards, one touchdown.
Albert Wilson, 2014: 16 catches, 260 yards, no touchdowns.
Damaris Johnson, 2012: 18 catches, 188 yards, one touchdown.
Chris Conley, 2015: 17 catches, 199 yards, one touchdown.
Hardman is at 25 catches for 508 yards and six touchdowns. So, already, in Reid’s 21 seasons, Hardman is tied for the most touchdowns, and fifth in catches and yards with a reasonable chance to be third in yards.
That’s pretty good.
I believe the following two things can be and are both true:
Baseball has way more parity than most think, and baseball should and will continue to work toward more economic fairness.
Lets do these in order.
For the parity, I’m going to borrow (steal?) much of this from the awesome Jayson Stark. Every year around the Super Bowl he blows holes into the idea that the NFL has more parity than baseball.
In the most recent edition he pointed out that six baseball teams ended championship droughts of at least 40 years, compared to just two in football. The Yankees have been in just one of the last 15 World Series, while the Patriots have been in half of the last 18 Super Bowls. Just once in the last decade has at least half the baseball playoff field repeated.
There’s a lot more in Stark’s column, and I hope he does it again in February, and I hope you read it. His facts flipped my perspective on this, and the same might happen for you.
There is no question that football provides a more even field for teams financially. But it’s been proven on the field that baseball teams can work around that.
The Royals had these same disadvantages the last time they rebuilt, after all, and they won two pennants and a World Series.
They just need to be smarter, and build more consistently through the draft, internationally, and the farm system.
Besides, most of those contracts that the Royals can’t afford end up proving to be mistakes.
It really is a strange context. Because it’s not fair financially, it is harder for teams smaller markets, and yet it’s still proven possible for smaller market teams to win.
The Royals are the outlier in terms of a small market World Series champion, but they don’t have to beat the Yankees or Red Sox or Angels to get to the playoffs. They need to beat the Twins and Tigers and Indians and White Sox.
Which is a different challenge...
It’s likelier to flop than end in another parade*. That’s just reality.
*Drink.
You’re right about the timelines, particularly with Whit Merrifield. I’ve thought for a while that the Royals should be aggressive in trading him for value, but I also understand what he means in the clubhouse, and that teams weren’t beating down the door with top prospects in trades.
The same is true for Jorge Soler, and the same is true about teams not valuing sluggers the way they once did. Hunter Dozier is 28.
The last few years have been affected in part by the Royals’ mistake in the offseason after 2016. At that point, the organization should have gone all-in on winning or building. Sign some free agents, or trade the valuable pieces away to reload for the future. If they did that, either way, the current reality would be different and probably better. This isn’t hindsight.
So the list of what needs to happen for this rebuild to click is extensive. They have to succeed in the minor leagues, but they also need to be efficient in how they supplement at the big league level.
It’s more than the pitchers, too. Those guys are important, and will deservedly get the most attention. But the Royals also need to score, and defend, and the hitting prospects are significantly inferior to the group that boasted Hosmer, Moustakas, Myers and Cain.
Connor mentioned this in the previous question, but the column about Sherman and sustainability fits better here.
The Royals are going to have to make a 30,000-foot decision about what they want to be. With the right hires and right decisions they can be the type of team that is in postseason chases more years than not, and they can even be the type of team that can be a confident championship threat in some years.
My belief is that the former is less difficult, and that the latter is likelier to both fail and win a championship.
Liga MX is a vastly superior league to MLS, and Pulido led Liga MX in goals in the most recent season. He also led his club to the CONCACAF title, and has been a regular on the Mexican national team.
He’s also, apparently, a superhero.
I don’t know that there is an NFL comparison to make, simply because there is no superior football league to the NFL.
If we’re ignoring that part of it, and instead concentrating more on the fact that Pulido also happens to fill Sporting’s greatest need (generating offense), then maybe this would be like the Chiefs acquiring Luke Kuechly?
Or Christian McCaffrey?
Jalen Ramsey?
Part of the shock is that this is the kind of move Sporting hasn’t made before. In fact, much of Sporting’s soccer identity has been in not making this move, in being the kind of team that develops and then sells and develops some more.
This was always going to be a pivotal offseason for Sporting, and this is a tremendous beginning. I’m interested in what comes next, because this can’t be the only move.
This is a tricky question for me to answer, because as much as I like some of the original content they put on there I’m mostly there for the college games that aren’t on traditional cable.
So in that way, no, I probably wouldn’t have ESPN+ if I had a real job.
But, then, if I had a real job I probably wouldn’t have cable, either. I’d probably cut the cord, get YouTube TV, and pay less than I’m paying now. And in that case I might pick up ESPN+.
I think about this a lot, actually. When it’s not baseball season, I probably watch Netflix or Showtime/HBO three times as much as anything on traditional cable. Of everything I spend money on, our cable subscription is probably the worst value.
Columnists get first shot, which may or may not be fair, but I’ll take every boost I can get.
So the process starts with Vahe and I talking about what we’re feeling. Sometimes it’s the same thing, but more often than not we’re seeing different plays or story lines jump out.
Herbie’s game stories — and they really are strong, and not traditional #recaps — can stand on their own but he’ll still talk with McDowell and the rest of us about what he’s seeing. McDowell is really good about finding angles that aren’t columns, including the piece from Sunday’s game about the safeties.
I do want to take this chance to say something that might come across as corny but is 100 percent true: I’ve been really lucky with who I’ve been able to work with, and Blair, Vahe, McDowell and Herbie are some of the best.
There’s no ego, no selfishness, no dismissiveness. They’re all good people, which makes the process smother and more productive.
A list? A list! We’re going to combine general traditions with specific Mellinger family traditions.
My Minutes, my rules:
10. Being outmanned in presents. If this list was 1,000 items long, this would be 1,000th. There is no greater mismatch in my marriage than my wife’s gift giving and mine, and it’s made worse because this year I had the perfect idea, this sweater she saw on a show we watched. Turns out there’s this website that had it, but it was sold out, and now I’m out of ideas and she just mentioned casually that she has a big idea for me and that all she wants is a new side door and this is my life.
9. Painting ornaments. The kids get really into it, and we stick them in with Christmas presents for family.
8. Gingerbread house. This is all my wife. I just show up after work one day and it’s sitting on the dining room table.
7. Christmas school programs.
6. Plaza lights. Reminds me of being a kid.
5. Elf on the shelf. I was super skeptical of this, and maintain an understanding why people don’t do it. But I flipped my opinion when the kids bought in. I have this picture in my phone of our older son seeing Eddie for the first time this season, and the wonder in his face is obvious, this elf in one corner of the picture and our tree in the background. It’s also pretty good for threats.
4. The menu: Crab legs at my in-laws on Christmas eve, this bacon strata for brunch Christmas morning* and a braised short rib recipe I got from this cookbook my mom gave us for Christmas dinner.
*But with real bacon, not Canadian.
3. We will get our tree on Black Friday, and we will get it from a real farm with sleigh rides and cookies, and we will listen to Christmas music on the drive there, the drive back, and while we decorate said tree.
2. The Nutcracker. Since the 1980s, every Mellinger child between the ages of 4 and probably 20 or so has seen the Nutcracker at least once every December.
1. Cheesy movie night. I’ve mentioned this before here, but this was a completely manufactured tradition my mom made up after the divorce. We make a bunch of glutenous appetizers — wing dip, Rotel/Velveeta, cheese sticks, etc. — and go to town as we watch the original Grinch and a random movie that may or may not be Christmas related.
Ideally we’re paying the kid down the street, but right now our neighborhood is in a bit of gap in terms of kids at the snow shoveling age.
The ones that used to do it are in college or beyond now, and after that I think the oldest kids are still losing their baby teeth.
Which is a shame, because not clearing snow is better than clearing snow.
I think snowblowers are overrated, which means it’s me and a shovel and a long driveway, long front walkway, and these rock steps that are just impossible.
Also, and I thank you for the opportunity to whine like this, that Sunday snow came at the absolute worst time for me. I obviously couldn’t shovel it before going to the game, and by the time I came back it was already frozen down.
Maybe I’ll take a run at it this morning. Pray for me.
Brother, I’ve got a list. As I type these words a big old pot of chili is simmering on the stove. As soon as I get home we’ll have a fire. Probably watch a movie tonight.
I obviously wasn’t home on Sunday, but my wife and kids spent what sounds like the entire day either sledding or watching the game. She made something like a thousand cookies once it got dark.
That’s basically snow day bingo for me.
Part of what I love about the cold and snow is that it changes the day, and creates this beautiful window to make memories. It’s an excuse to do stuff you wouldn’t otherwise.
Some of my favorite memories of being a kid are sledding down a hill at a golf course, or having a snowball fight, or realizing that it’s completely OK to just sit on the couch with a fire and watch a movie.
Pretty cool to be on the other side of that now, too.
There are a million places to get great tacos but I don’t think Saturdays at Bichelmeyer get enough shine.
I like Johnny’s more than most, I think, but some of that may be from growing up in Lawrence.
This is such a dad thing to say but the cheeseburgers at Fritz’s are better than you would expect for a place known for bringing the food on trains.
Speaking of cheeseburgers, LC’s should be talked about more than it is.
Danny Edwards is the most underrated barbecue place in town and I won’t debate this.
Actually, that’s probably the answer. Barbecue is what people talk about the most, but if the conversation gets past the giants — Joe’s, Gates’, Bryant’s, Jack Stack, Q39 — I hardly ever hear anyone mention Danny Edwards and their burnt ends and ribs deserve better.
This week, I’m particularly grateful for the chili recipe that started from my dad’s. I trust no man who doesn’t believe he makes the best steak, burger and chili* but I’ll put it against anyone’s. I believe in a lot of onions, a lot of seasoning, and the right mix of beans.
*I thought about adding ribs to this list, but there’s something to be said for a man who just wants to eat them.