Jaworski rates Chiefs QB at No. 20 among NFL starters

[Tribal Warfare]

Jaworski rates Chiefs QB at No. 20 among NFL starters

The Kansas City Star
Former NFL quarterback-turned-broadcaster Ron Jaworski ranks new Chiefs quarterback Alex Smith No. 20 among the NFL's 32 starting quarterbacks.

That's according to Jaworski's ratings on ESPN's MediaZone site, transcribed from his three-minute daily segments dubbed "Jaws' QB Countdown" on SportsCenter and NFL Live.

Smith, of course, was acquired in a trade from San Francisco this offseason, and has yet to throw a pass in Kansas City (aside from OTAs, that is).

Here are some excerpts from Jaworski's evaluation of Smith:

“A year ago, Smith was coming off his best season in the NFL, having led the 49ers to the NFC Championship. This year, he’s the starting quarterback for the Kansas City Chiefs. It was a great move by (Chiefs coach) Andy Reid to acquire Smith.

“The defining element of Smith’s play is efficiency. He executes the offense the way it’s designed, and he makes very few mistakes. Last season – for the second year in a row – he was exceptional on first down. In 2012 he led the NFL in first-down passing, with a quarterback rating of 119. Much of it came off play-action, or in the case of the 49ers, hard run-action out of base personnel. There was no better play-action quarterback last season than Smith. He had a quarterback rating of over 132.

“Smith has been outstanding out of multiple tight end personnel over the last couple of seasons. No quarterback has thrown the ball more with three tight ends on the field. You don’t see that very often in today’s NFL.

“This play was beautifully designed with all three tight ends to the same side. First, look at the impact of the run-action on the two linebackers and the safety. This was hard run-action. Then you see that Delanie Walker’s vertical route occupied the corner. That left Vernon Davis matched on a safety, a safety that initially reacted to run. He had no chance on Davis’ wheel route.

“One area Smith improved in 2012 was in the pre-snap phase of the game. He was much better at the line of scrimmage checking and audibling.

“It will be interesting to see what Andy Reid does in Kansas City. Don’t be surprised if he turns Smith loose a little bit and features an up-tempo offense with an emphasis on quick throws. Remember, Alex Smith played for Urban Meyer at Utah.”

Other QB's that Jaworski has analyzed so far:

No. 32 Matt Flynn

No. 31 Jake Locker

No. 30 Kevin Kolb

No. 29 Chad Henne

No. 28 Mark Sanchez

No. 27 Christian Ponder

No. 26 Brandon Weeden

No. 25 Michael Vick

No. 24 Ryan Tannehill

No. 23 Carson Palmer

No. 22 Sam Bradford

No. 21 Josh Freeman

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by SNR

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.

I really don't care that much about the picks they gave up. To me, the big debate is going to be whether Geno Smith or E.J. Manuel are true QBOTFs. Not just better than Smith, but franchise QBs. I thought Geno could be, but I'm not liking what I'm hearing about him post-draft.

I don't think they are. If they aren't, I don't mind the Alex Smith trade as much as long as we get a true franchise QB in the next 3 years (because it's probably not Alex Smith). It's possible Smith helps Reid build an offensive identity. I think Reid is going to tinker a bunch with some innovative offensive looks. This is one of those few times the scheme might justify the QB, as long as you don't hold on to the QB that long.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Chiefs Pantalones

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.

Right.

You need elite or near-elite QB play to have a realistic shot at playoff success. At least top half in the league. Top 10 or better is where the line really gets drawn, IMO.

Alex Smith never has been and probably will never be that QB (talking about true place in the game, not stats).

[KCDC]

Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate

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

Steve DeBerg incarnate!

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by KCDC

Steve DeBerg incarnate!

You could give this fanbase a young DeBerg clone, and they would shit roses.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

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.

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely stupid when people do this. You have to do that for EVERYBODY if you are pulling that kind of cherry picking bullshit. You are taking stats away from his team, but not others, it's ridiculous. It's like when Chiefs stats don't count against certain teams, but we suck off any and everybody for doing the same damn thing.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Bet:

How many times will sports casters say "play action" while calling the Chiefs this year?

Can we track this?

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

.

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?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by PGM

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?

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.

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

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

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

Check your rep

[Pablo]

Probably accurate. He's just a middle ground broke dick nobody that won't ever win anything here. 20 might be too high actually.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by TrueFanDave

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

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

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Also, if Denver frauds their way to 13 wins again, I will eat my shoe

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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

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

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by TrueFanDave

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

At the time, people were saying Cassel was better.