Hey really enjoy your work. I think you do a good job of storytelling and incorporating in analytics. I think the mention about how the offense was not really suited for the players they had is an interesting one. It seemed like those Chiefs offenses were still great regardless of that fact. Do you think if they had kept the west coast style, they would be all-time great?
Thank you so much for commenting! I love being asked follow up questions.
As for this one, the answer is in the form of another question. For the KC Chiefs to stick with a West Coast offence means no Vermeil and no Trent, as both are totally unsuited to that style. With Priest and Tony Gonzalez there regardless, could this team with Elvis Grbac at QB have still had such a fantastic offence? Personally, I'm not so sure about that.
As far as this timeline goes, this offence will not be a square shaped peg in a round shaped hole for much longer, as the steal of a contract that Priest is going to be stuck under for a while allows them extreme roster flexibility. As a result, the 2002 Chiefs are only going to share two offensive skill position players (Tony Gonzalez and Priest) with the 2001 version, and are going to come out looking much more cohesive. I'll get into that more in part three.
Thanks for the response. I do have two other questions. 1. You said Gonzalez's hall-of-Fame seasons were by and large over, yet he had his best season was in 2004 with Green and Vermil, and he had only 2 great seasons before they showed up. What's you're reasoning for saying he was essentially passed his peak? 2. What do you think is the best article or video to learn different offensive schemes? I have done some research before, but I feel based on your article and comment you have a deeper knowledge than I do.
You make a good point. This is more of a correction than an explanation. I omitted the phrase 'with Trent Green' from the end of the statement. I say this because he was (by far) the best TE in the NFL in 2000, and below only one of the best per play TE seasons of all time, Rickey Dudley in 1999.
Immediately after Trent and Dick arrive, this is over. Even in the extremely weak TE era that Trent and Tony play in, Tony can only manage second place on my tier list in 2001 (behind Marcus Pollard) and 2002 (behind Doug Jolley). He and Shannon Sharpe are hard to separate in 2003 (although Tony is on top, to his credit), and even with Tony's monster 2004 (a season which I think is overrated. I much prefer his 2000), Antonio Gates' monster 2004 was better. In 2005 Tony was nowhere, and all of a sudden in 2006 (a season Trent will play less than half of) he's the best TE in the league again.
What I was getting at with the comment is that people think Trent had the best TE in the league for five consecutive years. In fact, he had him once (in 2003).
As for your second question, it depends on how deep your current level of knowledge is.
If it's really basic, a good place to start is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhjRRtGnNcI&t=145s. Beyond that, it feels silly to recommend Alex Rollins or Brett Kollman on YouTube, but with liberal use of the fast forward button these people do have something to offer. Pat Kirwan's book is also fantastic for those with a working knowledge already. If you're already at that level of someone who's already read the book, I believe your knowledge is closer to mine than you believe.
Thanks for the recommendations and the response. I hope this isn't nagging but what puts 2000 Tony over 2004? He has more volume and efficiency in 2004 than in 2000. Is it quality of opponents or blocking that puts 2000 over 2004? From an effective in terms of efficiency standpoint, I can see Tony only being the best TE once with Green, but from a skill perspective wasn't Tony still the best? The point about Tony not being as good once Green and Vermel showed seems more like an indictment on them or their fit with Tony than his ability.
LOL. I operate a Substack dedicated to discussing obscure football topics. No need to worry about nagging. I promise.
As for Tony Gonzalez, there are two reasons I am down on 2004:
1) Tony's 2004 production is heavily buoyed by a ludicrous 33 targets in the final two games in a mad dash to break the NFL's all time season yardage record for TEs (a record he just missed). If he keeps his regular 8.2 targets per game for those final two games (but keeps his outstanding catch rates), he ends the season with 131 targets, about 90 catches for about 1130 yards, and still just seven touchdowns. Still very good numbers, but compared to 2000 they fall short.
2) Even if we don't take Tony's record chasing targets away from him, his results are not all that much better than in 2000, meanwhile the league passing environment (with the 2004 rule changes designed to curtail the Patriot defence) had changed dramatically. For instance, look at Brett Favre's 2004 numbers. They would've made him a runaway MVP winner just four years earlier, and with all due respect to Brett Favre, by 2004 he was not in the top five QBs anymore.
Therefore, Tony putting up only slightly better numbers in 2004 than 2000 leaves 2000 looking much better upon reflection of how much easier passing had become over just those four years. These two seasons basically took place in different eras, with 2000 obviously being the much more difficult half.
As for your point about failing to get the most out of Tony being a knock on Trent and Dick and not Tony, I disagree. The reasons are complicated, but in essence boil down to TEs just not being that valuable. Good offences in this era (it's slightly less true today) do not have TEs as their best skill position players. Their ceiling is just too low for that to work.
For instance, in 2000 Tony was excellent, by far the NFL's top TE, but was not even the best Chief receiver. That goes to Derrick Alexander. Therefore, the offence was good (7th in the NFL in EPA/Play). In 2008, Tony is going to again be the best TE in the NFL, and this time be by far the best Chiefs receiver. That offence is going to be terrible (24th).
It's an extreme example of the idea that prior to about 2017 (and certainly prior to 2011), if your best player is a TE, your offence likely isn't going to be very good. If you'd like an example without a horrible QB like Tyler Thigpen, prior to 2011 Antonio Gates is the Chargers' best offensive player three times (2004, 2007, 2010). The 2004 Charger offence was quite good anyway, but 2007 and 2010 were both unprecedented down years for them.
You are entirely correct in that QB and coach's choice to minimize Tony Gonzalez in favour of trying to elevate their rather limited receivers should not be construed as a knock on Tony, and I will now admit to phrasing that incorrectly. Nevertheless, I believe it to be a correct and astute decision out of them both, as unintuitive as that may sound.
That makes a lot of sense, here are my two follow up thoughts to that
1) I don't think it's wrong to say Tony was the best TE while Trent played in KC. While he might have only been ranked #1 once, he seems to be more consistently at the top than any other player during that stretch. I don't know your exact rankings for each season but I'm guessing he was no worse than 3rd in any of those seasons. Therefore, his average rank throughout that stretch would be highest.
(FYI, I'm not trying to be a Tony apologist or anything like that)
2) I think that building an offense around a tight end isn't a reliable strategy (mainly because there are so few that it is even feasible to do) but I also think that any offense that is too reliant on one skill player is going to fail. It seems most every great offense has multiple high-level skill players as well as a top 8-12 quarterback. While building around one elite RB or TE is low ceiling, I think so is one elite WR (though not to the same extent).
Calvin Johnson had some excellent season during the early 2010s were he got a ton of volume, but the team didn't have really any good receiving threats outside of him and Stafford was a top 13-20 QB. Same with Marvin in 2002, Brandon Marshall in 2012, and 1995 Isaac Bruce.
I haven't done any extensive research to back my theory up but I think it has at least some validity due to a similar phenomenon in Basketball where many great scorers reduce their volume when better teammates arrive, and the offense is better for it.
Hey really enjoy your work. I think you do a good job of storytelling and incorporating in analytics. I think the mention about how the offense was not really suited for the players they had is an interesting one. It seemed like those Chiefs offenses were still great regardless of that fact. Do you think if they had kept the west coast style, they would be all-time great?
Thank you so much for commenting! I love being asked follow up questions.
As for this one, the answer is in the form of another question. For the KC Chiefs to stick with a West Coast offence means no Vermeil and no Trent, as both are totally unsuited to that style. With Priest and Tony Gonzalez there regardless, could this team with Elvis Grbac at QB have still had such a fantastic offence? Personally, I'm not so sure about that.
As far as this timeline goes, this offence will not be a square shaped peg in a round shaped hole for much longer, as the steal of a contract that Priest is going to be stuck under for a while allows them extreme roster flexibility. As a result, the 2002 Chiefs are only going to share two offensive skill position players (Tony Gonzalez and Priest) with the 2001 version, and are going to come out looking much more cohesive. I'll get into that more in part three.
Thanks for the response. I do have two other questions. 1. You said Gonzalez's hall-of-Fame seasons were by and large over, yet he had his best season was in 2004 with Green and Vermil, and he had only 2 great seasons before they showed up. What's you're reasoning for saying he was essentially passed his peak? 2. What do you think is the best article or video to learn different offensive schemes? I have done some research before, but I feel based on your article and comment you have a deeper knowledge than I do.
You make a good point. This is more of a correction than an explanation. I omitted the phrase 'with Trent Green' from the end of the statement. I say this because he was (by far) the best TE in the NFL in 2000, and below only one of the best per play TE seasons of all time, Rickey Dudley in 1999.
Immediately after Trent and Dick arrive, this is over. Even in the extremely weak TE era that Trent and Tony play in, Tony can only manage second place on my tier list in 2001 (behind Marcus Pollard) and 2002 (behind Doug Jolley). He and Shannon Sharpe are hard to separate in 2003 (although Tony is on top, to his credit), and even with Tony's monster 2004 (a season which I think is overrated. I much prefer his 2000), Antonio Gates' monster 2004 was better. In 2005 Tony was nowhere, and all of a sudden in 2006 (a season Trent will play less than half of) he's the best TE in the league again.
What I was getting at with the comment is that people think Trent had the best TE in the league for five consecutive years. In fact, he had him once (in 2003).
As for your second question, it depends on how deep your current level of knowledge is.
If it's really basic, a good place to start is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhjRRtGnNcI&t=145s. Beyond that, it feels silly to recommend Alex Rollins or Brett Kollman on YouTube, but with liberal use of the fast forward button these people do have something to offer. Pat Kirwan's book is also fantastic for those with a working knowledge already. If you're already at that level of someone who's already read the book, I believe your knowledge is closer to mine than you believe.
Thanks for the recommendations and the response. I hope this isn't nagging but what puts 2000 Tony over 2004? He has more volume and efficiency in 2004 than in 2000. Is it quality of opponents or blocking that puts 2000 over 2004? From an effective in terms of efficiency standpoint, I can see Tony only being the best TE once with Green, but from a skill perspective wasn't Tony still the best? The point about Tony not being as good once Green and Vermel showed seems more like an indictment on them or their fit with Tony than his ability.
LOL. I operate a Substack dedicated to discussing obscure football topics. No need to worry about nagging. I promise.
As for Tony Gonzalez, there are two reasons I am down on 2004:
1) Tony's 2004 production is heavily buoyed by a ludicrous 33 targets in the final two games in a mad dash to break the NFL's all time season yardage record for TEs (a record he just missed). If he keeps his regular 8.2 targets per game for those final two games (but keeps his outstanding catch rates), he ends the season with 131 targets, about 90 catches for about 1130 yards, and still just seven touchdowns. Still very good numbers, but compared to 2000 they fall short.
2) Even if we don't take Tony's record chasing targets away from him, his results are not all that much better than in 2000, meanwhile the league passing environment (with the 2004 rule changes designed to curtail the Patriot defence) had changed dramatically. For instance, look at Brett Favre's 2004 numbers. They would've made him a runaway MVP winner just four years earlier, and with all due respect to Brett Favre, by 2004 he was not in the top five QBs anymore.
Therefore, Tony putting up only slightly better numbers in 2004 than 2000 leaves 2000 looking much better upon reflection of how much easier passing had become over just those four years. These two seasons basically took place in different eras, with 2000 obviously being the much more difficult half.
As for your point about failing to get the most out of Tony being a knock on Trent and Dick and not Tony, I disagree. The reasons are complicated, but in essence boil down to TEs just not being that valuable. Good offences in this era (it's slightly less true today) do not have TEs as their best skill position players. Their ceiling is just too low for that to work.
For instance, in 2000 Tony was excellent, by far the NFL's top TE, but was not even the best Chief receiver. That goes to Derrick Alexander. Therefore, the offence was good (7th in the NFL in EPA/Play). In 2008, Tony is going to again be the best TE in the NFL, and this time be by far the best Chiefs receiver. That offence is going to be terrible (24th).
It's an extreme example of the idea that prior to about 2017 (and certainly prior to 2011), if your best player is a TE, your offence likely isn't going to be very good. If you'd like an example without a horrible QB like Tyler Thigpen, prior to 2011 Antonio Gates is the Chargers' best offensive player three times (2004, 2007, 2010). The 2004 Charger offence was quite good anyway, but 2007 and 2010 were both unprecedented down years for them.
You are entirely correct in that QB and coach's choice to minimize Tony Gonzalez in favour of trying to elevate their rather limited receivers should not be construed as a knock on Tony, and I will now admit to phrasing that incorrectly. Nevertheless, I believe it to be a correct and astute decision out of them both, as unintuitive as that may sound.
Ok
That makes a lot of sense, here are my two follow up thoughts to that
1) I don't think it's wrong to say Tony was the best TE while Trent played in KC. While he might have only been ranked #1 once, he seems to be more consistently at the top than any other player during that stretch. I don't know your exact rankings for each season but I'm guessing he was no worse than 3rd in any of those seasons. Therefore, his average rank throughout that stretch would be highest.
(FYI, I'm not trying to be a Tony apologist or anything like that)
2) I think that building an offense around a tight end isn't a reliable strategy (mainly because there are so few that it is even feasible to do) but I also think that any offense that is too reliant on one skill player is going to fail. It seems most every great offense has multiple high-level skill players as well as a top 8-12 quarterback. While building around one elite RB or TE is low ceiling, I think so is one elite WR (though not to the same extent).
Calvin Johnson had some excellent season during the early 2010s were he got a ton of volume, but the team didn't have really any good receiving threats outside of him and Stafford was a top 13-20 QB. Same with Marvin in 2002, Brandon Marshall in 2012, and 1995 Isaac Bruce.
I haven't done any extensive research to back my theory up but I think it has at least some validity due to a similar phenomenon in Basketball where many great scorers reduce their volume when better teammates arrive, and the offense is better for it.