Chiefs Alex Smith's 2nd year looks alot like Trent Green's 2nd yr w/Chiefs - Page 9

cmh6476 · 12-30-2014, 11:06 AM

stat-wise and Because we are the Chiefs and DKTM

Trent Green 2002 (32 years old)
287/470 - 61.1% 3,690 yards 26 TDs 13 INTs

Alex Smith 2014 (30 years old)
303/464 - 65.3% 3,265 yards 18 TDs 6 INTs

Well sans the TDs but Green only had 17 in 2001 and Smith had 23 in 2013.

**DaneMcCloud** · 12-30-2014, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd1020

I'd put them both in the same category of QBs good enough to start for franchises that simply dont care.

I wouldn't.

He started for Minnesota but they obviously "care" because they tried to replace him and did as quickly as possible.

Cassel's a nice "stop gap" guy. He's good in the locker room and knows his role. Unfortunately, Scott Pioli mistook that as him being a capable starter and of course, we all know the rest.

But he's not Alex Smith, as if that should be any kind of barometer, anyway.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-30-2014, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Can you imagine how much shit people would be giving another team (let's use Denver as an example) if their last two quarterbacks were Matt Cassel and Alex Smith.

We still get chuckles out of Tim Teblow and everybody's happy to hammer the last nail in Manning's coffin.

All while we spend years trying to rationalize being okay with Matt Cassel and Alex Smith.

Stockholm syndrome?

Not "we", but your point stands.

Think of all the QB's (10? 12?) this place has tried to minimize over the last half-decade or so, (including SB winners) while propping up slapdicks like Cassel and Smith.

ODESSABRONC · 12-30-2014, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I wouldn't.

He started for Minnesota but they obviously "care" because they tried to replace him and did as quickly as possible.

Cassel's a nice "stop gap" guy. He's good in the locker room and knows his role. Unfortunately, Scott Pioli mistook that as him being a capable starter and of course, we all know the rest.

But he's not Alex Smith, as if that should be any kind of barometer, anyway.

Smith and Cassel are cut from the same cloth. They're both stop gap quarterbacks at best.

keg in kc · 12-30-2014, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Not "we", but your point stands.

Think of all the QB's (10? 12?) this place has tried to minimize over the last half-decade or so, (including SB winners) while propping up slapdicks like Cassel and Smith.

I was using the royal "we" indicating all of (groan) Chiefs kingdom...

(I hated both trades, as you'll recall)

rabblerouser · 12-30-2014, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

And Alex probably isn't anywhere near Trent's yards per attempt or per completion.

And Alex's line is nowhere bear as good as Trent's was at that time...

rabblerouser · 12-30-2014, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ODESSABRONC

Smith and Cassel are cut from the same cloth. They're both stop gap quarterbacks at best.

Matt Cassel doesn't have 1/2 the athletic ability of Alex Smith.

Pablo · 12-30-2014, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I think what that really shows is just how fallacious the quarterback rating statistic really is, which was why they developed QBR in the first place. His rating was high basically because a bunch of short passes inflated his completion percentage. His QBR is probably a more honest representation of his actual value.

I agree with you. I believe Total QBR to be a much better metric. But you have folks like PB, who will use Passer Rating, and I'm sure Smith fans would rather believe they have the 13th best QB as opposed to the 23rd.

If you split the difference at 18th; I think any and everyone can agree that isn't franchise QB material and he's pretty much stealing paychecks relative to his ranking against his piers.

dls6501 · 12-30-2014, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

Matt Cassel doesn't have 1/2 the athletic ability of Alex Smith.

So what? What good is it for QB1 to have twice the athletic ability of QB2 if he is producing at a similar rate?

jd1020 · 12-30-2014, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo

I agree with you. I believe Total QBR to be a much better metric. But you have folks like PB, who will use Passer Rating, and I'm sure Smith fans would rather believe they have the 13th best QB as opposed to the 23rd.

If you split the difference at 18th; I think any and everyone can agree that isn't franchise QB material and he's pretty much stealing paychecks relative to his standing against his piers.

I said a long time ago that Alex was 15-20 and then made a list, at the request of 49er trolls, and I believe I ranked him 18.

Even agreeing that he's 18th, you'll still get a bunch of people acting like there's really not much difference between the 8th ranked QB and Alex Smith.

rabblerouser · 12-30-2014, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dls6501

So what? What good is it for QB1 to have twice the athletic ability of QB2 if he is producing at a similar rate?

Part of that is Andy Reid's dogshit horizontal passing schemes, but I'd say that Alex Smith is a far more capable QB than Matt Cassel.

The improvement is tangible; it's quantifiable.

keg in kc · 12-30-2014, 02:17 PM

Going from explosive diarrhea to a runny shit is tangible improvement, too.

rabblerouser · 12-30-2014, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Going from explosive diarrhea to a runny shit is tangible improvement, too.

I suppose. Then you eat some cheese.

'Cheese' in this situation would be a couple of guards, a tackle, and something resembling an NFL WR corps.

Maybe then Reid would be able to call the odd downfield passing play without It being a wasted down.

duncan_idaho · 12-30-2014, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Exactly.

QB rating is the most worthless statistic kept in pro football.

According to the NFL, this stat line is a great game:

14/18, 90 yards, 2TD, 0INT.

124.5 rating, in a game where said QB's team lost by 20 points.

The quickest way for me to devalue your football opinions is to use QB rating as an indicator of QB play.

It is the NFL equivalent of batting average.

It can tell you some things, but an "empty" average or QBR is easily achieved.

keg in kc · 12-30-2014, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

I suppose. Then you eat some cheese.

'Cheese' in this situation would be a couple of guards, a tackle, and something resembling an NFL WR corps.

He'd still be Alex Smith, we'd still be wondering why he takes head-scratching sacks, never pushes the ball downfield and blaming everything he doesn't do on everybody around him.

Hootie · 12-30-2014, 02:22 PM

I think it's pretty ridiculous people aren't allowed to say, "well our Chiefs line wasn't very good this year."

It wasn't. That isn't an excuse for Alex. Good QB's make their lines look better, and Alex certainly didn't help in that cause.

But our line was pure garbage. And anyone who suggests otherwise is a nimrod.

12-30-2014, 11:06 AM
cmh6476 Keep Camp Home! Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St Joe MO Casino cash: $2686277	Alex Smith's 2nd year looks alot like Trent Green's 2nd yr w/Chiefs stat-wise and Because we are the Chiefs and DKTM Trent Green 2002 (32 years old) 287/470 - 61.1% 3,690 yards 26 TDs 13 INTs Alex Smith 2014 (30 years old) 303/464 - 65.3% 3,265 yards 18 TDs 6 INTs Well sans the TDs but Green only had 17 in 2001 and Smith had 23 in 2013.
Posts: 9,299

12-30-2014, 02:17 PM	#131
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Going from explosive diarrhea to a runny shit is tangible improvement, too.
Posts: 58,682

12-30-2014, 02:22 PM	#135
Hootie Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Casino cash: $10004900	I think it's pretty ridiculous people aren't allowed to say, "well our Chiefs line wasn't very good this year." It wasn't. That isn't an excuse for Alex. Good QB's make their lines look better, and Alex certainly didn't help in that cause. But our line was pure garbage. And anyone who suggests otherwise is a nimrod.
Posts: 56,356