It's similar value for what we have up for Green.

You're chipping away at a straw man.

Nothing more.

But keep patting yourself on the back.

I meant in the grand scheme of things, not just this offseason.

You sure have an itchy trigger finger as of late, ready to jump anyone. What's up with that?

Who was the better choice this offseason, BTW?

and this is why QB's are referred as a "field general".

AS is just more meticulous about how each player fits into the game and he expects blockers to perform with success, to some degree.

I'd appreciate any links or quotes re your "Urban Meyer" comment.

I don't see the Hasselbeck/Smith comparisons made earlier. If anything, Hass was too reckless throwing the ball downfield. He definitely wasn't a safe and conservative QB.

We're patiently waiting to develop, in a sense, our 29-year-old QB.

I love change in KC.

This year is going to be fun because at least we'll see some wins and a playoff loss. No bullshit. It beats 2-14, and I don't think this team will ever bottom out again under Reid's watch because he's too damn good.

But man I'm tired of seeing middling shit at QB. The first 3 1/2 quarters in Philly were flat painful. One great throw changed the entire point of discussion for the night.

But at least we had that moment, so we cannot discredit it.

The Rich Gannon comparisons need to stop.

His first season in Oakland they were 8th in points and 5th in yards. We aren't close to that.

They were also sixth in net yards gained per pass attempt. Currently we're 27th.

Whee, ****ers.

Duh, Hoyer.

You make a good point but I would add you have to be able to move the ball in chunks at various times and you have to put up points. I just don't believe dinking and dunking down the field isn't going to cut it in the NFL anymore.

No, sadly these strawman are alive and well strolling down the red and gold brick road of CP.

Sun 9/12
@ GB
L 24-28 16 31 227 51.6 7.32 43 0 1 62.2 1 6 6.0 6 0
Sun 9/19
@ MIN
W 22-17 21 33 248 63.6 7.52 35 1 0 96.5 5 48 9.6 20 1
Sun 9/26
vs CHI
W 24-17 26 35 295 74.3 8.43 20 2 0 118.2

I don't see there being a large discrepancy in Alex and Rich's stats through their first 3 games, sans Rich's win vs. Chicago.

Manning would be in that swing after one game because he would study the system until he knew it inside and out. If you're making that excuse for Smith, then I have to question his preparation.

Yeah, that tends to happen when you have to score 40 to win.

Christ, the Saints gave up 30+ points to an Alex Smith offense.

Rep.

Wonder how many people read the commentary after the article...


Burden of Persuasion


The writer of the post has the burden of persuasion, as s/he does for any argument. Even factually accurate statistics can be misleading when (a) a small sample size is used, (b) end-points are carefully selected, or © they are taken out of context. But when such white-lie dishonesty still doesn’t make the point the writer wants to make, to resort to subtracting points from the Chiefs’ offense while not subtracting it from any other team’s numbers, and then comparing the modified Chiefs to the unmodified others, that’s a dishonesty of the bald-faced variety.

It was the poster’s lie, not mine. Catching the lie and holding the poster accountable for telling it advances the discussion enough to be useful; the burden isn’t on me (or any of the other several readers who caught the lie) to also go back through the numbers to tell the actual truth. To require one of us to do so would be to require us to accept the poster’s premise, which I don’t. When the defense scores points, the offense doesn’t have to, and the coaches game plan (more conservatively) accordingly. So rather than comparing teams on a dishonest measure of a relatively unimportant stat, I’m more more interested in comparing teams based on advanced stats like ToP/dr. ToP/dr is basically a measure of how successful the Chiefs’ offense was in each of the game contexts it found itself in. And in that stat, they are in the top half, and nearly the top third. This is also why Football Outsiders advanced stats rank the Chiefs’ offense in the top half of the league.

by johnbenjaminmoore on Sep 26, 2013 | 8:58 AM⬆up↩reply

Baltimore scored 31ppg in the playoffs last year... Flacco threw for 11 yards in 4 games with a 9ypa and 117 rating. Seattle lost last year despite throwing for 385 yards and scoring 28 points. Houston lost their playoff game 41-28 last year. The 2011 Giants scored 25.5pgg in the postseason, and Manning threw for over 1200 yards in 4 games. The 49ers last year gave up 31 points in two of their games and in 2011 had to beat the Saints 36-32 on Smith's 300 yards/3TDs (and Brees threw for 460 that game, but didn't have 140 yards rushing to back it up like the 49ers did).

There are almost no guarantees in anything, so it's pointless to even say... the overwhelming trend is that you need elite QB play to win deep in the playoffs, which can only be overcome by elite play at several other positions, such an entire defense.

Random comment: cannot believe that there isn't a Justin Houston thread on page one.

Damn that mother****er is beasting.

ROFL

So good I just wanted to use it again somewhere. It doesn't really fit but whatever.

http://theaterofmine.files.wordpress...iser-hooks.jpg

teehee

Agreed, other than the one great throw part. It was a good throw, and damned timely, but one that good NFL QBs make 10 or 15 times a game. It wouldn't even make the highlight reel for a lot of QBs in the league.

I want my QB making a throw like that every drive to be perfectly honest.

From a physical standpoint, there wasn't anything unbelievable about that throw.

However, considering that Smith had been shit all night, the field position was terrible, and all of the momentum was starting to turn against the Chiefs, that was a gutty ****ing moment.

Look, Smith is still remarkably mediocre; this isn't anything new. But that throw was high-quality.

Agreed.

The only stat that matters right now is 3-0. The RT & TE positions need to pick it up. If that happens, Smith & the offense will improve the other stats. Would not be surpised to see Fisher moved to Guard if he doesn't pick it up this next game or two. Not necessarily my recommendation, but I can see it happening.

Back to earth? Dude, this defense is only going to improve.

Guard? He plays too high at tackle. He'd get pushed back into Smith on every play at guard.

Dane speaks the truth.

I can't disagree. That's why it's not my recommendation. But I can see the coaching staff trying to "protect" him by moving him inside.

I'd bet 5 million pesos Fisher never plays one down at guard in his NFL career.

I just had a threat blocked while on this page.

I hope you're right.

Nah.

Huh? Why would that happen?

You don't think this D is legit?

The defense probably isn't going to play at this level all year long. We're realistically not a top 5 D.

Houston and Denver are probably going to force Alex to put up more than 24 to win.

Interesting article about roster stability...

"The Bears, Chiefs and Cardinals all changed head coaches, changed a lot of offensive personnel, and have seen improvements offensively."

http://s23.postimg.org/5gl3tv3kr/Scr...3_27_43_PM.png

KC is headed in the right direction. Patience people.

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/po...equals-success

Bullshit.

The Raiders twice, Bills and Cleveland aren't going to challenge this defense. San Diego *might*, even though they had a hard time with Tennessee.

Houston's been winning games badly. They're way out of sync. Denver is the only team that I can see giving the Chiefs fits and well, they're giving every team fits.

Even if you have a top D you're not going to stop top offenses all the time. You should be happy if you hold Peyton Manning to 21 or 24 points. This isn't 1991.

Of course if we lose 24-21 to the Broncos, people here would inevitably blame the defense.

Why would the D regress?

They're not going to "regress" per se. We face a lot of crappy teams so I'm sure there will be stat padding going on.

But do you really expect them to hold the Broncos under 21 points? I don't. Flowers has been iffy and Sean Smith is...Sean Smith. I don't know who the **** our nickel is.

I wonder what Alex does with his defense that makes such a difference.

He left SF and their defense is sucking chili dogs
He goes to KC and we are raping like we are the 96 Chiefs d

I think djln said the exact opposite thing about Bowe earlier this season. And he was probably there watching it...
Posted via Mobile Device

Last yrs D held them to 19 in Arrowhead.

And Alex Smith could be 21-26 with 250 yards, 3 TD's, no interceptions and people would inevitably blame him.

Yeah that was a silly comment. This D is LOADED in talent.

But that was before the emergence of Julius Thomas, the addition Wes Welker and Ronnie Hillman's rookie season.

Bullshit. This is as talented of a defense as there is in the league.

He doesn't put the defense into a bad situation. He rarely turns the ball over on his side of the field, and if the drive stalls the opposing team usually has to drive the length of the field to score.

And this yrs D is even better than last year.

A boy can dream...

I hope they match up well and contain but until I see a team hold Denver to less than 30 points, I'll have my doubts.

How can people not see the insane talent we have. Watch other games and it is mind blowing.

Even Jags fans get bummed out coming to the planet-lol Too many Eeyores.

I guess.

We're not 85 Bears or anything, though.

Manning's gonna get his.

Alex Smith. The QB who gets too much blame when his team wins, and too much credit when his team looses.

ROFL how true

deez beat me to it...but I don't want to hear about having to wait for a 29 year old vet QB we traded multiple picks for to develop...seeing the play down field under pressure isn't a scheme specific skill, it's a talent you have or don't

on this point we'll just have to agree to disagree

and re: the gannon discussion

if I remember correctly, he was signed by the Raiders as a FA, he didn't cost them anything, so it's really not a straight comparison

i'd give much less of a shit about Smith if he were free

This. I really don't care as much about not stretching the field if he keeps doing this. Where he has to improve is he HAS to get much better in the red zone and he had better learn to be nails in the clutch. If he does those two things, I'm actually okay with Alex Smith (and I'm not necessarily a big fan). But it's seeming more and more that offenses who can play efficient offense make their defense better.

:clap:

Most of this, I agree with. OL penalties and stuffed runs need to be less frequent, and the receiver drops lessening would help this dink-and-dunk offense greatly though.

(and small potatoes, but Manning had a fumble lost in his last game vs Oakland)

Can't disagree with this, really.

We had 5 trips to the red zone before last Thursday's game, and we had 5 TD's. We were bound to not score a TD on every trip in there.

Alex may put together longer drives, but overall, it is the turnovers and inept offense from Kaepernick.

Against Seattle, Kaep turned the ball over 4 times.. 3 of them were on the short side of the field... 2 INTs were returned inside the 25 and inside the 5. Against the Colts, the D held Indy to 13 points through 50 minutes of the game... but the SF offense couldn't do shit.

The Ravens ran the ball over 30 times (and usually over 35 times) in each of those playoff games. Just because a QB runs an efficient offense, doesn't mean he isn't going to get yards. Eli was also a master at running an efficient offense in their two Super Bowl runs. Flacco was a master in the playoffs because he ran an efficient offense and then had a few HUGE yardage plays sprinkled in between.

Teams like the Saints and Packers, they usually run the ball less than 20 times. Both were outside the top 20 in rushing attempts in 2012.

Still needs SOME time to click with his new receivers. He has to learn their subtleties. His accuracy greatly improved in SF because he learned that each receiver had strengths and weaknesses in their catch radius. So he knew that some targets needed to be thrown to with more touch and to the body... others showed that they could snatch the stronger outside passes.

Watching the 49ers, it's more than fair to ask if an offense that runs way too fast puts your defense at a disadvantage.

Andy Reid is 78-12 when his teams are on the right side of turnovers. While I think the Chiefs paid too much for Smith he was the best option for this year.

Geez does Every thread have to turn into a Alex Sucks / Kape is better / we gave too much for him / we should have drafted Geno / the Chiefs are doomed!!!!

Yup. I'm not a big Alex Smith fan. But I think people have the misperception that you have to run a Drew Brees offense to be successful, and that's just not at all the case. The Ravens and the Giants are examples of teams that tend to be really difficult to stop in the playoffs, and they do it by playing efficiently. These guys do similar things as Alex Smith does, but they can also make big plays (when needed) and are the definition of a game manager, where within reason they can take what the defense gives them (which means being able to shoot out, if needed).

:eek: :clap:

what do you want, every thread to be about getting raped by your babysitter or something?

LMAO

However you look at it, those QBs put up good passing numbers and those offenses had to put up points. Hell, if people aren't comfortable with "there's overwhelming evidence that you need elite QB play to win deep into the playoffs (unless you have a lot of shit to make up for it, like an elite defense)", think of it as needing a lot of points, regardless of where they come from. Then, all you have to do is look at scores and try to fool yourself (not you, specifically) into thinking you can win with a decent defense and mediocre QB.

So, about those 28+ points you'll need when going up against the Mannings and Rodgers of the world, are you more comfortable relying on your offense or defense to get them? Assuming you know the purpose of each and picked offense, are you going to rely more on a run/short pass game or stretching the field? And like you said, it's not like 'stretching the field' means every drive or whatever... but, it does mean taking chances.

You can call those offenses efficient or whatever... and they certainly aren't DV-style offense.... but, the QBs still put up elite numbers and you have to get the points somehow.

Yeah, I'm not buying this narrative of Alex Smith as astute QBing surgeon.

He processes SO MUCH information!!! It's ****ing unbelievable!!! He's like P. Manning, without the physical talent or testicles!

...

LMAO That thread would just turn into how the 49ers raped us on the trade / how Alex is raping this Offense because he sucks so bad and how the Chiefs are raping the fans by pretending to be winners before they rip our hearts out.

The Giants and Ravens are at their best when the defense gives them something to work with, and when they can run the ball... a LOT. Eli doesn't look the same this year now that their running game is a complete embarrassment.

I believe Flacco and Eli are elite QBs. I don't think Alex Smith is. I just find it a little ridiculous that people don't want to call Flacco and Eli elite because they aren't putting up 5,000 yard seasons. Or that the game is shifting to a fast passing attack game. These are guys who may not always throw over 4,000 yards, but I'd take them over most QBs in this league.

Nah, not like that. Good point by you, I probably worded that wrong. When I mean doesn't have to, its more like he isn't inclined to take an un Alex like conservative approach with the team leading which they were. That's what I mean by doesn't have to. I agree. The offense needs to be better, more consistent. I don't think anyone would say differently. I just don't believe you can lay this at the feet of one person.
Who said everything is A OK?

What I hear is one side saying.....Alex Smith is more aggressive, everything else will be okay.

What I hear the other side saying is: The problems with the offense are far bigger than one person, and there are multiple issues to deal with.

I don't see anyone saying, SHUT UP, THE OFFENSE IS GREAT, EAT A DICK ALEX HATER.....

Inaccurate in both respects.

Side A: Great that we're 3-0, but this approach, offensively, won't sustain success.

Side B: 3-0 speaks for itself. Smith is doing a great job of protecting the football and facilitating the game.

What Manning, Big Ben, and Flacco do really well is take what the game gives them. That means when this defense breaks (and it will, especially when the playoff race heats up), then Smith better be ready to keep up with an aggressive offense.

That's where I think he falls a little short. This is also the type of offense where Smith can't just be good in the 4th quarter, he has to be exceptional. I think Smith is the type of QB who can manage his way to a playoff win or two, but unlike Flacco and Eli, he'll be dependent on the defense to make plays for him. And I'll need to see more 4th quarter performances like we saw against Philly.

If Smith can do those things, he may make games look uncomfortable, but he does make us competitive.

and for the record, there is a link to a positive article about our defense in the thread header...but literally no one cared

Alex "The Surgeon" Smith will be carving up the Giants this week!!

4-0!!

I still maintain that if the oline comes together, the tight ends get healthy, the play calling is cleaned up, lets be honest, until the 4th quarter it was absolutely hideous, and alex smith develops and demonstrates trust in his receivers, this offense will be a hell of a lot better.

To me, that is far more accurate than saying, well if Alex Smith just takes more chances down the field, everything is better instantly.

I don't believe that in the least.

Actually, both A and B can be true simultaneously.