Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 9796033)

This doesn't help your case Tombstone because:

1. Bill Williamson is a joke

2. You claim KC isn't as talented or good as Denver, but yet this article you cite only has 1 more Bronco on the list.

3. The 1 player that you have over us is Peyton Manning, the one who is the difference.

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ (Post 9795732)

dude, look at all the posts I have on the planet. I never go knowmo but I do know football. The Broncos have a great team, period. If you want to argue position by position I will. Coaching staff and front office, sure. The Broncos are pushing for a SB and when you say "the Broncos have no talent compared to the mighty chiefs" I'm calling BS.

Originally Posted by PGM (Post 9796287)

Donco homerism is the only sanctioned homerism on CP.

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ (Post 9796288)

Nope, YOU CLAIM KC HAS MORE TALENT THAN DENVER. Good lord you're a friggen moron. All I did was say BS.

Wow, you are that stupid.

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ (Post 9796293)

This is what I'm saying. Apparently a RunKC can't read. Not only are his football takes pathetic, he has issues reading.

Originally Posted by TrueFanDave (Post 9796300)

This is a Chiefs board. Remember that.

Dumbass.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 9796303)

I don't agree with the homeristic arguments for the Chiefs here, but at the end of the day, I don't give a rat's ass about the regular season.

Peyton Manning is 37 years old, and only 4 QBs over the age of 33 have won a SbS. Combined with the fact that Manning's postseason choking is almost lengendary' I can only hope you enjoy the season ending heartbreak.

Originally Posted by rico (Post 9794630)

This is a pivotal year for Bradford. The Rams have compiled the necessities he needs to be successful. No excuses if he sux teh penis this year.

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ (Post 9796309)

I guess we will have to wait and see. Manning does have a Lombardi but he's set the bar so high that now everyone thinks he needs 2-3 Lombardi's to prove his greatness? That's a nice problem to have IMHO. I'm glad he's a Bronco.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 9795412)

I think most of the reasonable guys who are anti-Alex Smith trade have a stance that is different than this.

Basically, that a shot a mediocrity with Alex Smith in 2013 and 2014 is less desirable than taking a shot with a QB who can potentially be better than 15-22nd best in the NFL.

Disliking the price given up for Alex Smith is not just about passing on a QB in Rnds. 1, 2, 3 in this year's draft. It's also about how much more difficult it will make it to acquire a QB early in next year's draft.

Not in position to take the guy you want because your team went 7-9 or 8-8, Andy Reid? Good luck moving up for that QB without your 2nd/3rd round pick.

That's not to mention the fear the Chiefs will commit to Alex Smith long-term before he proves he can be more than an average game manager that can't win playoff games (unless he's playing the 31st D in the NFL).

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 9796323)

Carried by his team, who stepped up big time in spite of Manning tryong to throw away games against inferior teams.

Originally Posted by Coogs (Post 9796334)

I guess my expectations are a little higher than yours.

We have a starting NFL QB who was 13-3 two seasons ago, and had his team on pace for something similar last season at 6-2 before suffering a concussion.

I'm not expecting 7-9 or 8-8 as the ceiling for this team. Not by a long shot.

Sure, Smith was not great out of the gate as an NFL QB. But the last two season he completed 64% of his passes for 30 TD's and 10 INT's.

In the playoffs, he out dueled the best QB in the league that season in Brees, who threw for almost 5,500 yards, in a great 4th quarter. Smith made plays when he had to. Not once, but twice. 3 TD's and 0 INT's in that game on 42 passing attempts.

Against the Giants, he had his team in position to win, but didn't. We have been through reasons why many times. I tend to side with the muffed punts being the reason, but that is JMO. For the record, 2 TD's, 0 INT's.

I don't think it is being unreasonable to expect our team to compete for championships... starting this season.

And sure, I would like to have a drafted QB we can call our own like the 3 teams last season, but that doesn't guarantee Super Bowl. Look at Dan Marino. Super Bowl 2nd season, never made it back. The 49ers may never make it back under Kaep's watch. Time will tell.

In the mean time, I expect more this season than 7-9 to 8-8.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 9796234)

If that's the type of owner Clark Hunt is... he can go fist himself. Seriously.

I have suspicions that's the case. That selling "being competitive" and filling Arrowhead is more important to Clark than actually trying to win a championship. There's evidence to suggest otherwise, but it isn't overwhelming.

There are a lot of owners in pro sports who are trying to win championships first. Mark Cuban. Robert Kraft. Jerry Buss. Some of the better examples. If an NFL owner is not in that crowd, considering the even playing field and salary cap and 100 percent shared TV revenue, that guy is an a$$.

If Clark proves to be that type of guy.... I can do without the Chiefs in my life. I hope that isn't the case... but if you're not trying to build towards a championship in the NFL, what the eff is wrong with you?

Clear fact of the matter is that it is nearly impossible to win big in today's NFL WITHOUT the big-time QB. And that you won't CONSISTENTLY win big in today's NFL without that guy. Yet the Chiefs continue to avoid taking shots at the position at all. That is what is so infuriating to so many of us.

Now, maybe they draft a QB in the next draft they think can be the guy. Maybe they're high enough to nab a guy who can be a consistent front-line performer at the position. Drafting a guy in Round 4, 5 or 6 doesn't count. Signing a shithead UDFA like Tyler Bray doesn't count either.

Now, if they take that QB high next year and promptly sever ties with Alex Smith, the argument is over. Maybe that's the plan (though the price they paid for Alex Smith makes is less likely to succeed). But I have seen little and heard little - especially from hearing Clark Hunt talk about the QB position - to suggest otherwise. Everything I've seen and heard indicates they're hitching their wagon to Alex Smith for more than two years.

There might not have been a QB in the draft who could start right away. There might not have been an Andrew Luck ready-made NFL starter. But that wasn't the only option available. Also on the table: Sign a stop-gap FA QB who is better than Cassel, or trade for a cheaper QB who is better than Cassel, and draft a QB who can be developed a little in Rnds. 2, 3.

Instead, they pulled the same approach they've been pulling my entire life. Please don't be surprised if I and many others are skeptical it will work THIS time, or that it was even the right thing to do THIS time.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 9796340)

I don't think the 49ers defense is walking through that door. Smith has similar offensive weapons to what he had in San Fancisco (though I don't think KC has a pass catcher who presents the pass catching matchup problems that Vernon Davis does), but the D that carried Smith is not here.

I will not put the same stock in that Saints win that you do. The saints d was terrible, and smiths performance against it was average against that team for the year.

His performance is a big part of why they lost the next game.

I can see 5-6 more wins this year. But even if they win 8 more, that's still likely nothing more than another empty playoff birth. Not worth the price.

Originally Posted by Thig Lyfe (Post 9796319)

Anybody who thinks Alex Smith is a good quarterback should be shot

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup (Post 9796341)

Well what evidence have you ever seen that was more than lip service from Clark.

This offseason was all about getting back some respectability. It was not about trying to win it all. They went out and signed a head coach that is respected league wide. We went out and got a QB that was a 1.1 pick as well as recently in the NFCCG and a SB where he was replaced because of injury which is not suppose to happen.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 9796340)

I don't think the 49ers defense is walking through that door. Smith has similar offensive weapons to what he had in San Fancisco (though I don't think KC has a pass catcher who presents the pass catching matchup problems that Vernon Davis does), but the D that carried Smith is not here.

I will not put the same stock in that Saints win that you do. The saints d was terrible, and smiths performance against it was average against that tea'm for the year.

His performance is a big part of why they lost the next game.

I can see 5-6 more wins this year. But even if they win 8 more, that's still likely nothing more than another empty playoff birth. Not worth the price.

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ (Post 9796288)

Nope, YOU CLAIM KC HAS MORE TALENT THAN DENVER. Good lord you're a friggen moron. All I did was say BS.

Wow, you are that stupid.

Originally Posted by PGM (Post 9796190)

Chiefs didnt have a lead until half way through the year..

Originally Posted by GordonGekko (Post 9795675)

Yes way. Alex Smith is crap and hasn't proven anything really in the NFL, Andy Reid's last few teams have been huge underachievers and his system in my opinion has become antiquated in today's NFL, and we have a new head coach, GM, and QB. How do you see more than 5 wins? I might push 6 but that seems optimistic. I'd love to eat my words and see us with at least 8 wins, but I'm not going to get my hopes up, **** no. Just a reminder, what does 4-12, 2-14, 4-12, 10-6, 7-9, 2-12 mean to you?

Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 9796417)

The donk OL, WRs and TEs were looking bad until Peyton got there.

Alex Smith isnt some savior, but he is a sizable upgrade to what we had in Cassel/Quinn and I can see the team playing much better with him at QB.

Anyone that thinks going from Crennel to Reid and Cassel/Quinn to Smith isnt gonna raise the level of play, across the board on this team, is joking themselves.

I expect a better version of the 2010 Chiefs.

Originally Posted by Coogs (Post 9796351)

Fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion. I just don't happen to agree.

And FWIW, I consider myself reasonable too! :)

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 9796436)

I appreciate your point of view even if I disagree with it. You're reasonable and logical and have made me think about some things I otherwise would have.

Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 9796366)

I said the Chiefs have equal or slightly more talent than you if you take away Manning, who was the difference.

Then your dumbass brought up a shitty Bill Williamson article which said you had ONE more top player, being Manning, so you proved MY point.

JFC you're a stupid Donkey troll.

You shouldn't call anyone's football IQ out when you're the one using a Bill ****ing Williamson article to prove a point.

Originally Posted by Coogs (Post 9796382)

duncan_idaho,

To expand a little on my last post, I am in agreement with what Sac has said best in regards to what Smith is going to do for our defense this season. By keeping them fresh and not giving them a short field to defend, I expect our defense to be better. Much better in fact.

And if we actually start playing with a lead in the 2nd half, I expect this team to be able to pin their ears back and get after QB's... something we didn't have the luxury of being able to do last season.

Again, this is my opinion.

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ (Post 9796445)

You said kc has more talent, I said BS. You then said "where do you disagree?" I then pointed out TE as one example. Then you basically pulled your same old BS claiming that Moeaki is some kind of great TE.

I said the Broncos are deeper at TE and then I proved this by pointing out an article from Williamson who has one of the Broncos TEs listed but not Maoeki. Your only defense is to claim Williamson sucks. Which is typical of a tard like yourself when you've just been handed your ass in an argument.

Keep ****ing that chicken, loser.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 9796457)

A 2-14 team (that has won 29 games in 6 years) has more talent than a 13-3 team.

I've officially seen everything.

Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 9796359)

Yea I can see how a guy playing the best football of his career leading the league in efficiency and YPA is getting carried by the defense.

Makes sense to me. That defense was completing the passes right?

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 9796462)

I don't think that was actually said...

I could have missed it though
Posted via Mobile Device

Originally Posted by PGM (Post 9795547)

We have the best coaching and talent in this division pretty easily right now.

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 9796451)

I don't think he ever tried to say moeaki was great, just that he had better stats than dressen with much worse qb's. And I don't think an article mentioning one of the broncos proves then a much deeper unit either.
You do realize what "deeper" means, right?
Posted via Mobile Device

Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 9795682)

QB-Donks by far
RB-Chiefs by far
TE-Chiefs
WR-Donks by far, but Bowe is good tho
OL-Push...you damn well bet that Manning makes them look good with his quick decisions
DL-Donks..Chiefs weakest unit, but Donks don't really have anyone special there anyway
LB-Chiefs by far...Von is best, but we have 3 pro bowlers. Better as a group.
DB-Chiefs-Not by much, but Champ is descending and I'd take Berry and Flowers over DRC and Moore any day of the week and it's not close.

Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 9795728)

The same Joel Dressen that had less receiving yards than Moeaki, our 3rd TE? Even though he had 8 more catches than him too? He sounds pretty awesome to me. LMAO

You sure do know football!

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 9796467)

If you take away touchdowns scored by his defense/ST, during the regular season the past two years, Smith's offense scored 548 points by my count. Which comes out to just a shade under 23 PPG. That's good enough for 18th in the NFL in 2012 or 16th in 2011. Not bad, but very middle of the road and not the type of performance you'd expect to accompany a guy who is 19-4 as a starter in that timeframe.

Take away a couple of laugher/blowouts against craptastic teams in each year, and the PPG dip to less than 22.

A QB who is putting up mediocre offensive output yet still winning at that ratio is riding his defense.

And yes, his QB rating is shiny and so are his YPA. It's still impressive, but less so when you apply the context of who Alex Smith really is as a QB. Minimal pass attempts, taking no chances, scrambling early or checking down early instead of hanging in the pocket and throwing heavily off of play-action does wonders for efficiency and YPA.

He's better than Cassel and better than anything the Chiefs have had since Trent Green. But he's still a mediocre starting NFL QB.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 9796467)

If you take away touchdowns scored by his defense/ST, during the regular season the past two years, Smith's offense scored 548 points by my count. Which comes out to just a shade under 23 PPG. That's good enough for 18th in the NFL in 2012 or 16th in 2011. Not bad, but very middle of the road and not the type of performance you'd expect to accompany a guy who is 19-4 as a starter in that timeframe.

Take away a couple of laugher/blowouts against craptastic teams in each year, and the PPG dip to less than 22.

A QB who is putting up mediocre offensive output yet still winning at that ratio is riding his defense.

And yes, his QB rating is shiny and so are his YPA. It's still impressive, but less so when you apply the context of who Alex Smith really is as a QB. Minimal pass attempts, taking no chances, scrambling early or checking down early instead of hanging in the pocket and throwing heavily off of play-action does wonders for efficiency and YPA.

He's better than Cassel and better than anything the Chiefs have had since Trent Green. But he's still a mediocre starting NFL QB.

Originally Posted by -King- (Post 9795599)

Eh, he's young. He's working on improving his attitude issues this off season. But even with those issues, he's still one of the most productive QBs in NFL history through their first two years. If he improves, he'll be a legit top 3 QB.

Originally Posted by houstonwhodat (Post 9796518)

Scam Newton sucks ass.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 9796354)

The injury just provides the opportunity that he would not have been given otherwise.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 9796467)

If you take away touchdowns scored by his defense/ST, during the regular season the past two years, Smith's offense scored 548 points by my count. Which comes out to just a shade under 23 PPG. That's good enough for 18th in the NFL in 2012 or 16th in 2011. Not bad, but very middle of the road and not the type of performance you'd expect to accompany a guy who is 19-4 as a starter in that timeframe.

Take away a couple of laugher/blowouts against craptastic teams in each year, and the PPG dip to less than 22.

A QB who is putting up mediocre offensive output yet still winning at that ratio is riding his defense.

And yes, his QB rating is shiny and so are his YPA. It's still impressive, but less so when you apply the context of who Alex Smith really is as a QB. Minimal pass attempts, taking no chances, scrambling early or checking down early instead of hanging in the pocket and throwing heavily off of play-action does wonders for efficiency and YPA.

He's better than Cassel and better than anything the Chiefs have had since Trent Green. But he's still a mediocre starting NFL QB.

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup (Post 9795603)

Oookay I wouldn't call everyone on that list reasonable about anything Alex Smith.

Reasonable is not bashing the shit out of everything. Reasonable is this is not what I wanted but it was the best option at the time. We will have to move on again quickly from another QB definitely sucks but I prefer this to another year of Cassel ****ing everything up.

Originally Posted by houstonwhodat (Post 9796572)

I'm just glad I have Drew Brees for a few more years before he becomes a senator or president or something.

Brittany Brees would make a fine first lady...

Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 9796560)

Games are not played in a vacuum. The 49rs had a badass defense so they played to their strengths Harbough is a conservative type coach.

Smith did exactly what he was asked to do and that's all you can ask.

Originally Posted by ChiefGator (Post 9796771)

I think he has a chance to be the best QB we have had in a long time.

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ (Post 9795739)

Moeaki, seriously? LOL:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9biPfmRxOK0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:thumb:

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9796615)

Would you like Drew Brees as much as you do if he were a ninja?

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ (Post 9796288)

Nope, YOU CLAIM KC HAS MORE TALENT THAN DENVER. Good lord you're a friggen moron. All I did was say BS.

Wow, you are that stupid.

Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 9796359)

Yea I can see how a guy playing the best football of his career leading the league in efficiency and YPA is getting carried by the defense.

Makes sense to me. That defense was completing the passes right?

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 9796478)

Outstanding post. Rep.

EDIT: Or not. "You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Duncan Idaho again."

Originally Posted by MagicHef (Post 9796410)

Was this true in 2011? 2010?

If that's the reason that no one outside of Hali and Houston got sacks last year, then they should have been able to when the team was competitive.

Originally Posted by aturnis (Post 9797027)

What are the facts? Something like 80% of his attempts were inside of 10yds? Not only that but he relies HEAVILY on play action. Yes we have the ability to operate that way, but what if Charles goes down?

Originally Posted by MagicHef (Post 9797032)

83.5% of his passes were targeted at 9 yards or less.

Originally Posted by aturnis (Post 9797031)

Do you not understand anything about a 2 gap 3-4 defense? The very last job of the Dline is to rush the passer.

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ (Post 9796474)

Yes, it means better, as in the entire unit as a whole.

Here's his original post on the subject:



Sorry, but the Broncos are better at the TE position with Tamme and Dreesen, and the young guys like Green and Thomas.

Here's what he said when I pointed out that Dreesen is nice depth:



So RunTard uses our second best TE to somehow prove how great TE Moeaki is? Who the **** cares if Moeaki is better than our second best TE?

Williamson's article does not point out Moeaki as being a anything special but it does say Tamme is one of the top 40 talents in the AFCW.

Originally Posted by Alex Smith HATER (Post 9796782)

You know it IS possible to have a badass defense AND a great passing attack.

Really, no...I mean it's happened before and everything.

Originally Posted by MagicHef (Post 9797039)

That's very interesting, since we were talking about Johnson and Berry.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9796588)

Basically reasonable = agreeing with me.

Yeah, right. I'm still going to fight this for years to come that giving up the farm for Alex ****ing Smith was NOT the best option on the table.

And unfortunately for the Chiefs, I've got a pretty strong feeling that I'm right on this one.

Originally Posted by Chiefs Pantalones (Post 9797030)

Agreed. While woe is us we aren't the only ones with this problem. There's only about five proven true franchise QBs in the league. We're not the only ones looking for one.

Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate (Post 9796992)

THANK GOD! THE PLAY-ACTION GURU I HAVE BEEN DREAMING OF SINCE 1996 HAS FINALLY ****ING ARRIVED!

Originally Posted by KCDC (Post 9797140)

Steve DeBerg incarnate!

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 9796467)

If you take away touchdowns scored by his defense/ST, during the regular season the past two years, Smith's offense scored 548 points by my count. Which comes out to just a shade under 23 PPG. That's good enough for 18th in the NFL in 2012 or 16th in 2011. Not bad, but very middle of the road and not the type of performance you'd expect to accompany a guy who is 19-4 as a starter in that timeframe.

Take away a couple of laugher/blowouts against craptastic teams in each year, and the PPG dip to less than 22.

A QB who is putting up mediocre offensive output yet still winning at that ratio is riding his defense.

And yes, his QB rating is shiny and so are his YPA. It's still impressive, but less so when you apply the context of who Alex Smith really is as a QB. Minimal pass attempts, taking no chances, scrambling early or checking down early instead of hanging in the pocket and throwing heavily off of play-action does wonders for efficiency and YPA.

He's better than Cassel and better than anything the Chiefs have had since Trent Green. But he's still a mediocre starting NFL QB.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 9796471)

.

Originally Posted by PGM (Post 9797266)

We do. QB is king though. Which I also said is why they'd win more games this year for sure with a healthy Manning. You really don't think 40 turnovers by the position led to that mark?

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 9797284)

What's the excuse for only winning 27 games the previous 5 seasons?

That's the problem - there's always an excuse, and it's never the players.

Do talented teams have a down year every 5-10 years? Sure.

Talented teams don't have 6 years stretches where they only win 29 games.

But it's easier to find another reason instead of considering that the team isn't nearly as talented as you like to think they are. I mean, FFS, people STILL act as if guys like Moeaki and McCluster are these can't-miss talents when they've done nothing in the league to give that impression.

And to say this roster is more talented than the roster of a team that just went 13-3?

C'mon, man.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 9797284)

What's the excuse for only winning 27 games the previous 5 seasons?

That's the problem - there's always an excuse, and it's never the players.

Do talented teams have a down year every 5-10 years? Sure.

Talented teams don't have 6 years stretches where they only win 29 games.

But it's easier to find another reason instead of considering that the team isn't nearly as talented as you like to think they are. I mean, FFS, people STILL act as if guys like Moeaki and McCluster are these can't-miss talents when they've done nothing in the league to give that impression.

And to say this roster is more talented than the roster of a team that just went 13-3?

C'mon, man.

Originally Posted by TrueFanDave (Post 9797291)

Quarterback. Plain and simple. That's the difference.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 9797300)

Interesting, considering teams like the Jets, Oakland, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc have all won more games in the last 6 years than we have, with inferior QB's.*

*According to CP, 2009-2012

Originally Posted by TrueFanDave (Post 9797307)

Huh? Inferior? Think real hard about the QB play the past 2 seasons, save the last 3 games of '11.