Why wasn't there a spy on Mahomes?

[Joe Ferguson]

I don' know if this was ever brought up so sorry if I'm repeating this. But why didn't they set up one Bills defensive player to solely watch Mahomes if he gets out of the pocket and scamper for big yards? We could have held him for little or no gain and forced them to punt maybe 2 - 3 times in the game. That would have been huge!

[Billl]

2 spies would have been even more effective at stopping Mahomes from scrambling.

[Niagara Dude]

6 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson said:

I don' know if this was ever brought up so sorry if I'm repeating this. But why didn't they set up one Bills defensive player to solely watch Mahomes if he gets out of the pocket and scamper for big yards? We could have held him for little or no gain and forced them to punt maybe 2 - 3 times in the game. That would have been huge!

I think because of their weapons ,  you cannot afford to rush 4 and have extra man just for Mahomes. 

[MrEpsYtown]

1 minute ago, Niagara Dude said:

I think because of their weapons ,  you cannot afford to rush 4 and have extra man just for Mahomes. 

 

This is the correct answer. You can't rush 4, spy, and cover. We lacerate Edmunds on this board, but people want to add more and more to his plate. 

[Warcodered]

Because Hill and Kelce exist.

[filthymcnasty08]

If you can design a defense to do all of the below:

 

the NFL needs you.

 

Rush 4 down lineman

Guard against Hill home run threat

Guard against Kelce destroying through the middle

Guard against Mahomes scramble

 

[Billzgobowlin]

Because they have to protect from him throwing as well

[zow2]

He probably would have eluded a spy.  The game seemed too fast for our D the entire way.   They really had no answer for anything, especially when the Chiefs ramped up the urgency.

[Nextmanup]

1 minute ago, Niagara Dude said:

I think because of their weapons ,  you cannot afford to rush 4 and have extra man just for Mahomes. 

Yes but they never should have rushed 4 in that situation!

 

It was a total coaching breakdown.

 

There was no way 4 DLmen were going to get home when Mahomes had to work THAT FAST.  They should have put maybe 1 or 2 guys on the line, if that, and flood the middle of the field with defensive backs or anyone who can fly.

 

Defending the boundaries was also a tactical error.

 

 

[Max Fischer]

Employer a spy is a zero sum game. If you employ a spy, you have one less pass rusher or one less pass defender. Allen and Mahomes are two QBs that will kill you either way. As the game went on, I believe the DL did much better job of trying to contain. 

[chico14]

because it's frowned upon to have 12 players on the field

[Mark80]

54 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson said:

I don' know if this was ever brought up so sorry if I'm repeating this. But why didn't they set up one Bills defensive player to solely watch Mahomes if he gets out of the pocket and scamper for big yards? We could have held him for little or no gain and forced them to punt maybe 2 - 3 times in the game. That would have been huge!

Takes another guy out of coverage of Hill and Kelce.  Also, Mahomes really didn't run that much this season.

[All_Pro_Bills]

The Bills coaches were already positioning the safeties (2) so far back off the LOS in order to avoid the big over the top play and adding a spy(1) plus 4 down linemen (4) leaves 4 defenders to cover 5 potential receivers.  So its a pick your poison dilemma for the DC. 

The fundamental problem and truth is that even after the 2021 off season additions and changes the Bills defense still does not match up well with the Chiefs offense.  But then neither does almost every other team in league.  Its a work in progress and at the end of the day still plays too passive.  What's crazy to me is the Bills passive defense is almost a mirror image opposite of the aggressive philosophy and approach of the Bills offense.  Like the angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other. 

[Saint Doug]

We didn’t need a spy on Mahomes. We just needed to know where on the field Kelce and Hill were. We couldn’t even figure that out. 

[TheBrownBear]

The only way you're beating the Chiefs is with Cover 2 and a front four of elite pass rushers that can get after Mahomes and actually bring him down.  I think we actually did a halfway decent job of pressuring him in the first couple of quarters, but just didn't have the type of playmaker that could close the deal and take him to the turf.  That's why I still believe we need to devote most of our resources in the offseason to finding those d-line pieces.  Hopefully, Epenesa, Rousseau and Basham can take the next step in 2022.

[MJS]

Because then you lose a guy from coverage AND from pass rushing.

[popcornpam]

What did 49 do? He  Seems like he just stood there most of the game.  I thought he was spying on Mahomes? Especially during that 13 seconds. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by popcornpam

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

Mahomes has to be spied on third downs. It seems we did not do that. The very first Chiefs drive killed us. There had to been at least three or four plays during that drive  where could’ve gotten off the field or forced a FG at the least. Could’ve been the difference in the game.

8 minutes ago, MJS said:

Because then you lose a guy from coverage AND from pass rushing.

Mahomes is prolific on converting third downs with his feet. Especially third and Long’s. This is pretty well known and has been the case for a few years. I’m fine with not spying him on first and second down. But not spying him on third down is criminal. 
 

I feel like he converted at least two or three third downs with his legs on the opening drive of the game for the Chiefs

[BuffaloBillyG]

2 hours ago, Billl said:

2 spies would have been even more effective at stopping Mahomes from scrambling.

3 spies would have been best.

[Spiderweb]

2 hours ago, Joe Ferguson said:

I don' know if this was ever brought up so sorry if I'm repeating this. But why didn't they set up one Bills defensive player to solely watch Mahomes if he gets out of the pocket and scamper for big yards? We could have held him for little or no gain and forced them to punt maybe 2 - 3 times in the game. That would have been huge!

Spy? We couldn't cover the guys they sent out on pass plays. Sure would have been better to remove one guy just to watch Mahomes... Jeesh!

[MJS]

1 hour ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

Mahomes has to be spied on third downs. It seems we did not do that. The very first Chiefs drive killed us. There had to been at least three or four plays during that drive  where could’ve gotten off the field or forced a FG at the least. Could’ve been the difference in the game.

Mahomes is prolific on converting third downs with his feet. Especially third and Long’s. This is pretty well known and has been the case for a few years. I’m fine with not spying him on first and second down. But not spying him on third down is criminal. 
 

I feel like he converted at least two or three third downs with his legs on the opening drive of the game for the Chiefs

He is MORE prolific at converting 3rd downs by throwing it to Kelce or a other player.

[K-9]

Because if I have the choice between Mahomes beating me with his arm or his feet, I’m choosing feet every time. One of  the reasons why he couldn’t find open guys downfield, especially early on, was because we didn’t have a spy assigned to him. KC is a pick your poison offense, much like ours. I bet some KC fans were wondering why they didn’t double Gabe Davis all game, for instance.

[dave mcbride]

6 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Because if I have the choice between Mahomes beating me with his arm or his feet, I’m choosing feet every time. One of  the reasons why he couldn’t find open guys downfield, especially early on, was because we didn’t have a spy assigned to him. KC is a pick your poison offense, much like ours. I bet some KC fans were wondering why they didn’t double Gabe Davis all game, for instance.

The problem with Mahomes is that he's not only a generationally great thrower, he's a ridiculously good scrambler who regularly makes defensive lines look bad. Even our two sacks of him were negligible; he ran out out bounds on both just behind the LOS. 

Basically, he presents the same problems that Josh Allen presents. They are both generational talents who are better than the guys they face on defense.  

[Livinginthepast]

2 hours ago, Niagara Dude said:

I think because of their weapons ,  you cannot afford to rush 4 and have extra man just for Mahomes. 

In some instances they should have rushed 2 and dropped 2 back into coverage. One could have been the spy. They really needed to mix it up out there. That is what worked for the Bucs in the SB.  But the Bills were way too conservative. Being that way only worked when the Chiefs dropped the ball or made their own unforced mistakes and that wasnt often. The Bills had decent pressure at times in that game but everytime they were within tackling distance the Bills player whiffed and Mahomes got out unscathed. They needed an unconventional game plan because Mahomes is so different from your average QB but unfortunately we got the "low fat" vanilla version of Fraziers traditional vanilla defense.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

The problem with Mahomes is that he's not only a generationally great thrower, he's a ridiculously good scrambler who regularly makes defensive lines look bad. Even our two sacks of him were negligible; he ran out out bounds on both just behind the LOS. 

Basically, he presents the same problems that Josh Allen presents. They are both generational talents who are better than the guys they face on defense.  

Yep. Sometimes, ya just gotta tip your hat to the other team because they have great players, too. 

[Livinginthepast]

4 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

The problem with Mahomes is that he's not only a generationally great thrower, he's a ridiculously good scrambler who regularly makes defensive lines look bad. Even our two sacks of him were negligible; he ran out out bounds on both just behind the LOS. 

Basically, he presents the same problems that Josh Allen presents. They are both generational talents who are better than the guys they face on defense.  

Mahomes footwork when he is in the pocket and his ability to avoid pressure is the best I have ever seen in 40 plus years of watching football. Josh is able to get out of sacks by using his size and strength but Mahomes seems to salsa out of there without even being touched.

[dave mcbride]

48 minutes ago, Livinginthepast said:

In some instances they should have rushed 2 and dropped 2 back into coverage. One could have been the spy. They really needed to mix it up out there. That is what worked for the Bucs in the SB.  But the Bills were way too conservative. Being that way only worked when the Chiefs dropped the ball or made their own unforced mistakes and that wasnt often. The Bills had decent pressure at times in that game but everytime they were within tackling distance the Bills player whiffed and Mahomes got out unscathed. They needed an unconventional game plan because Mahomes is so different from your average QB but unfortunately we got the "low fat" vanilla version of Fraziers traditional vanilla defense.

The SB was a combination of both starting tackles being out and Mahomes playing with turf toe. I remember at the end of the AFC championship game last year when Fisher, their LT, went down in garbage time with an achilles. I thought, uh oh. It truly had a domino effect on that line in the SB. The combo they ran out there was total trash. 

[Victory Formation]

As far as a spy on Mahomes is concerned, I think a DB or hybrid player is best suited here and not a LB or a DE. Mahomes is not a big guy, nor is he very strong.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

4 hours ago, Billl said:

2 spies would have been even more effective at stopping Mahomes from scrambling.

[Mango]

3 hours ago, Niagara Dude said:

I think because of their weapons ,  you cannot afford to rush 4 and have extra man just for Mahomes. 

Also, you don’t lose to Mahomes because he rushes for 100+ yards. He’s not Allen or Lamar in that way. If Mahomes is racking up rushing yards over and over again, more oft than not it’s because teams are taking away the pass. If your secondary isn’t disciplined in their coverage when PM is on the move you’re going to have a bad time. 
 

I will take my chances having Mahomes rush for 150 rather than taking a guy out of coverage to account for him. 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

5 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

The problem with Mahomes is that he's not only a generationally great thrower, he's a ridiculously good scrambler who regularly makes defensive lines look bad. Even our two sacks of him were negligible; he ran out out bounds on both just behind the LOS. 

Basically, he presents the same problems that Josh Allen presents. They are both generational talents who are better than the guys they face on defense.  

 

I agree. Seems that some posting in this thread do not recognize how lethal Mahomes has been in his career on 3rd and long with his legs. I believe he lead the league last year in conversions on 3rd and long with his legs. That is over, Allen, Jackson, Murray etc.

 

It's odd because he doesn't appear to be that fast but he reads the defenses so well he knows exactly when and where to run. Where as Allen is often running past, through and around defenders Mahomes is simply running through wide open green field on many of his long runs.

4 hours ago, Mango said:

Also, you don’t lose to Mahomes because he rushes for 100+ yards. He’s not Allen or Lamar in that way. If Mahomes is racking up rushing yards over and over again, more oft than not it’s because teams are taking away the pass. If your secondary isn’t disciplined in their coverage when PM is on the move you’re going to have a bad time. 
 

I will take my chances having Mahomes rush for 150 rather than taking a guy out of coverage to account for him. 

 

It's not about stopping him from rushing for XX amount of yards. It's about stopping him on 3rd downs. He converted two on the ground in the opening drive alone. Stop him on the first one and the Chiefs are punting at their 40 yard line. Stop him on the second one and they are probably kicking a FG instead of scoring a TD. 3rd down is the down you spy Mahomes.

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

We never covered Hill & Kelce effectively anyway. If they're both going to shred us regardless maybe we're better off committing an extra guy to spying on Mahomes to take away his legs on the 3rd and longs. 

[NoSaint]

10 hours ago, Joe Ferguson said:

I don' know if this was ever brought up so sorry if I'm repeating this. But why didn't they set up one Bills defensive player to solely watch Mahomes if he gets out of the pocket and scamper for big yards? We could have held him for little or no gain and forced them to punt maybe 2 - 3 times in the game. That would have been huge!

because we’d rather he run than complete long passes 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

33 minutes ago, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said:

We never covered Hill & Kelce effectively anyway. If they're both going to shred us regardless maybe we're better off committing an extra guy to spying on Mahomes to take away his legs on the 3rd and longs. 

exactly right

9 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

because we’d rather he run than complete long passes 

I’d rather get off the field on third down. Obviously whatever we did on that KC opening drive did not work. 

[Billl]

1 hour ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

I agree. Seems that some posting in this thread do not recognize how lethal Mahomes has been in his career on 3rd and long with his legs. I believe he lead the league last year in conversions on 3rd and long with his legs. That is over, Allen, Jackson, Murray etc.

 

It's odd because he doesn't appear to be that fast but he reads the defenses so well he knows exactly when and where to run. Where as Allen is often running past, through and around defenders Mahomes is simply running through wide open green field on many of his long runs.

Mahomes is Jordan and Allen is LeBron.  They’re both good at everything while being great at different things.  

[1ManRaid]

2 hours ago, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said:

We never covered Hill & Kelce effectively anyway. If they're both going to shred us regardless maybe we're better off committing an extra guy to spying on Mahomes to take away his legs on the 3rd and longs. 

 

I can assure you that taking away a pass defender to keep a spy on Mahomes WILL keep him from running for third downs!  The problem is it will be because he'll be too busy putting up 500 yards and 6 TDs through the air.  Then you knee-jerk reactionary types would be complaining about not double teaming so and so, or not blitzing instead.

 

You can't guard against everything all the time, and Mahomes' primary weapon is his ARM.  If our pass rushers could have wrapped him up all the times they got their hands on him (tackling was a problem in general), we're not even having this discussion and the gamelan you're trying to ridicule is being praised instead.

[The Wiz]

There was a spy, he just wasn't in the playoffs anymore. 

 

 

[Governor]

There was a spy. Edmunds.

[NoSaint]

12 hours ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

exactly right

I’d rather get off the field on third down. Obviously whatever we did on that KC opening drive did not work. 

playing against a team like kc nothing is going to always work. 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

You don't need a spy if they play zone like they usually do. Edmunds effectively becomes the spy covering the middle of the field. Yes Mahommes can move in the pocket, but I don't think there is a single poster on this board that would have said they needed to put a spy on Mahommes before the game was played. That is revisionist thinking. They rushed four got pressure and didn't contain. That is bad execution and maybe bad luck, not coaching.