ChiefsPlanet
Page 5 of 7 1234 5 67
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Peter King: Chiefs will listen to trade offers for Albert (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=271265)

milkman 03-18-2013 08:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefGator (Post 9511381)
I think you can safely hold onto that hope then.

My hope, personally, is that Smith continues to improve as a QB as he has done each year in the league. In the last two years he lost only 6 games out of 27 and threw 35 TD's against only 10 interceptions. Passer ratings of 90.7 and 104.1. Lead a team to the NFC championship and got a team in position for a Super Bowl run. So, that's my hope.

But if he doesn't.. I'm sure Reid and Dorsey will look elsewhere.
Alex Smith didn't lead a team anywhere.

He grabbed on to their asses and was pulled along as far as they could drag him.

Sweet Daddy Hate 03-18-2013 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 9512164)
Alex Smith didn't lead a team anywhere.

He grabbed on to their asses and was pulled along as far as they could drag him.
The Donnie Edwards of QB's?
Posted via Mobile Device

ShortRoundChief 03-18-2013 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guru (Post 9510472)
Tackles are not game changers. They don't win games for you. They don't take games over.

With pick 1:1 you get a game changer or you trade back.
That's a ****ing silly statement.

Are pass rushers game changers? By not allowing a de to blow up your qb, you are changing the game. Not to mention, running lanes etc.

A good offensive line has just as much to do with a win than a qb, probably more so.

'Hamas' Jenkins 03-18-2013 08:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Diddy (Post 9512184)
That's a ****ing silly statement.

Are pass rushers game changers? By not allowing a de to blow up your qb, you are changing the game. Not to mention, running lanes etc.

A good offensive line has just as much to do with a win than a qb, probably more so.
Must be why SB winning teams over the last several years have such dominant offensive lines, especially tackle play.

This argument has been thoroughly debunked.

keg in kc 03-18-2013 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Diddy (Post 9512184)
That's a ****ing silly statement.

Are pass rushers game changers? By not allowing a de to blow up your qb, you are changing the game. Not to mention, running lanes etc.

A good offensive line has just as much to do with a win than a qb, probably more so.
You only take a tackle #1 if he's Orlando Pace and there's literally nobody else in the draft.

Yes, pass rushers are game changers. Shut down corners are game changers. Wide receivers are game changers. I'd even take a legitimate star RB before I'd take a non-generational offensive tackle, and I'm one of the people who thinks it's silly to draft RBs before the middle rounds. I'd still pick that over a tackle.

And all of them are miles behind QB.

'Hamas' Jenkins 03-18-2013 08:19 PM
From December 2011:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 8226368)
I should repost the list of SB Linemen of the last three years.

Besides, here are the starters on OL for the last six SB teams:

LT: Jermon Bushrod, Charlie Johnson, Jonathan Scott, Chad Clifton, Max Starks, Mike Gandy
LG: Carl Nicks, Ryan Lilja, Chris Kemoatu (x2), Daryn College, Reggie Wells
C: Jonathan Goodwin, Jeff Saturday, Doug Legursky, Scott Wells, Justin Hartwig, Lyle Sendlein
RG: Jahri Evans, Kyle DeVan, Ramon Foster, Josh Sitton, Darnell Stapleton, Deuce Lutui
RT: John Stinchcomb, Ryan Diem, Flozell Adams, Brian Bulaga, Levi Brown, Willie Colon

Of those 29 players there are six Pro Bowlers:

Chad Clifton, Flozell Adams (who was a shell of himself at this point; it was his last year in the NFL), John Stinchcomb (played one more year after his SB appearance), Carl Nicks, Jahri Evans, Jeff Saturday

6/29, barely over 20%. If you count Kemoatu twice, then it's really 6/30, basically one PBer per line, and that assumes that guys like Adams and Stinchcomb were playing at a Pro Bowl level at that point in their career, and the truth was they were anything but.

tk13 03-18-2013 08:21 PM
I think tackles are important. Probably more important than we act on here... because everyone is so QB focused. Willie Roaf took the Chiefs to another level offensively... it's an important position. There are plenty of instances of Super Bowl teams having 1st round LTs.

The catch is we already had two good tackles, and a 1st round LT.

keg in kc 03-18-2013 08:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 9512206)
The catch is we already had two good tackles, and a 1st round LT.
That there's a good point.

Hootie 03-18-2013 08:22 PM
I figured when he was tagged he would be traded.

Hopefully we get a 2nd and a 4th.

Honestly, whatever. Still hoping we can trade down even if we do trade Albert.

'Hamas' Jenkins 03-18-2013 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 9512206)
I think tackles are important. Probably more important than we act on here... because everyone is so QB focused. Willie Roaf took the Chiefs to another level offensively... it's an important position. There are plenty of instances of Super Bowl teams having 1st round LTs.

The catch is we already had two good tackles, and a 1st round LT.
Not nearly as often as there used to be.

In a league where DBs can't be physical with receivers, pass catchers get better, cleaner releases, which gets them open sooner, which obviates the need for several seconds of pass protection.

Bewbies 03-18-2013 08:24 PM
I'm sure this is Q but it should be noted that the last 2 players taken at #1 that were not QB's:
1. Saw their front offices and coaching staffs fired before the end of their first contract.
2. Signed 2nd contracts with a team that didn't draft them.

Hootie 03-18-2013 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 9512206)
I think tackles are important. Probably more important than we act on here... because everyone is so QB focused. Willie Roaf took the Chiefs to another level offensively... it's an important position. There are plenty of instances of Super Bowl teams having 1st round LTs.

The catch is we already had two good tackles, and a 1st round LT.
Yeah I don't think our 2003 team would be as effective in today's NFL as it was then...

I'd still take a flyer on the #1 QB prospect at 1 when you need a QB rather than 10 guaranteed years of Willie Roaf. I don't think Joeckel even has Joe Thomas potential.

But if Joeckel turns into Joe Thomas and we take him I won't hold a forever grudge against him...it'll just make for a disappointing draft day 2013.

If we must take an OT I hope we can at least trade down to do so.

tk13 03-18-2013 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 9512220)
Not nearly as often as there used to be.

In a league where DBs can't be physical with receivers, pass catchers get better, cleaner releases, which gets them open sooner, which obviates the need for several seconds of pass protection.
That's a fair point too. And to be fair, we're supposedly trying to run a WCO.

It just depends. The Ravens had former 1st round picks at each tackle position. It worked for them. But their passing offense was let's run downfield for a long time and have Flacco chuck it up it there.

Hammock Parties 03-18-2013 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512222)
Yeah I don't think our 2003 team would be as effective in today's NFL as it was then...
Why not?

I think the offense would be better, the defense would obviously be worse.

tk13 03-18-2013 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512222)
Yeah I don't think our 2003 team would be as effective in today's NFL as it was then...

I'd still take a flyer on the #1 QB prospect at 1 when you need a QB rather than 10 guaranteed years of Willie Roaf. I don't think Joeckel even has Joe Thomas potential.

But if Joeckel turns into Joe Thomas and we take him I won't hold a forever grudge against him...it'll just make for a disappointing draft day 2013.

If we must take an OT I hope we can at least trade down to do so.
Our 2003 offense would be dominant in any era, I think.

Doesn't mean they'd win a Super Bowl... but even though the league has entered another level of passing offense... the top rushing teams the last few years have still made the playoffs.

Hootie 03-18-2013 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go to Hell (Post 9512230)
Why not?

I think the offense would be better, the defense would obviously be worse.
well this league has turned into a total passing league

Vermeil's offenses were always predicated by the run. Maybe they would still work. Meh what am I saying. They probably would still be badass.

at least half of that team was fun to watch

tk13 03-18-2013 08:30 PM
Look at the Niners, they can maul people up front. They finished 4th in rushing, 23rd in passing offense. And who's the guy designing their schemes up front? Mike Solari. He's still dominating.

The top 4 teams in rushing this year all made the playoffs. 6 of the top 8. That's half the playoff teams.

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 9512242)
Look at the Niners, they can maul people up front. They finished 4th in rushing, 23rd in passing offense. And who's the guy designing their schemes up front? Mike Solari. He's still dominating.

The top 4 teams in rushing this year all made the playoffs. 6 of the top 8. That's half the playoff teams.
They also spent three first rounders on their line.

'Hamas' Jenkins 03-18-2013 08:38 PM
The Colts, Saints, Packers, Steelers, Cardinals, Steelers, Patriots, and Giants were on average below average to terrible rushing teams.

:shrug:

Hootie 03-18-2013 08:38 PM
I don't doubt the 49ers have a good line...

but how did the two teams that made the Super Bowl get there?

Amazing QB play.

spades 03-18-2013 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512267)
I don't doubt the 49ers have a good line...

but how did the two teams that made the Super Bowl get there?

Amazing QB play.
and some horrible safety play

The Franchise 03-18-2013 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9512250)
They also spent three first rounders on their line.
And Smith still took a shitload of sacks.

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pestilence (Post 9512426)
And Smith still took a shitload of sacks.
That's what happens when you don't have dick as your perimeter players.

And before you or anyone else says "Kaepernick", I'll remind you that Alex Smith is not a dual threat, nor is he a threat to run for a touchdown from the 20 yard line, let alone 50 yard line.

cdcox 03-18-2013 09:28 PM
QBs are about equally responsible for sacks as their offensive line. Alex Smith is a sack machine.

NJChiefsFan 03-18-2013 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512267)
I don't doubt the 49ers have a good line...

but how did the two teams that made the Super Bowl get there?

Amazing QB play.
So perhaps I took it the wrong way when you told me yesterday that you don't think QB's are clutch and that it's a team sport?

-King- 03-18-2013 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9512466)
That's what happens when you don't have dick as your perimeter players.

And before you or anyone else says "Kaepernick", I'll remind you that Alex Smith is not a dual threat, nor is he a threat to run for a touchdown from the 20 yard line, let alone 50 yard line.
No, that's what happens when you suck so bad that your coaches encourage you to take sacks over trying to make a play.

NJChiefsFan 03-18-2013 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9512466)
That's what happens when you don't have dick as your perimeter players.

And before you or anyone else says "Kaepernick", I'll remind you that Alex Smith is not a dual threat, nor is he a threat to run for a touchdown from the 20 yard line, let alone 50 yard line.
Crabtree seemed to become a real WR once the switch was made.

milkman 03-18-2013 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan (Post 9512481)
Crabtree seemed to become a real WR once the switch was made.
The excuse making for Alex Smith is already reaching Cassel levels.

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 09:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan (Post 9512481)
Crabtree seemed to become a real WR once the switch was made.
Yes, he improved this season, no doubt.

But before 2012, he was lazy and overweight. His play improved last year under Harbaugh but it wasn't until this year that he began playing consistently at a high level.

That said, he's still no better than a #2 on most teams. That's why they signed Randy Moss, Mario Maningham and took A.J. Jenkins, who completely sucked so much ass he didn't even have one reception, in the first round last year.

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 09:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 9512487)
The excuse making for Alex Smith is already reaching Cassel levels.
No, comparing Smith to Cassel has already reached epic absurdity.

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 09:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 9512487)
The excuse making for Alex Smith is already reaching Cassel levels.
Name the 49ers badass, breakout, mother****ing receivers.

Go.

Don't act like he had the same weapons as Ryan or Flacco or Rodgers.

Hammock Parties 03-18-2013 09:36 PM
The only thing that's "absurd" about the Cassel-Smith comparisons are the people who REFUSE to acknowledge that they have definite similarities.

I mean Alex Smith throws the ball down the field less than Cassel. That's hard to do.

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 09:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go to Hell (Post 9512504)
The only thing that's "absurd" about the Cassel-Smith comparisons are the people who REFUSE to acknowledge that they have definite similarities.

I mean Alex Smith throws the ball down the field less than Cassel. That's hard to do.
Please tell me, to whom was Smith supposed to throw down the field over the course of his career?

And do you know anything about the WCO? There has to be a metric or stat on PFF.

milkman 03-18-2013 09:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9512498)
No, comparing Smith to Cassel has already reached epic absurdity.
I am not comparing Smith to Cassel.

I've stated numerous times he's better than Cassel.

But suck is suck.
The level of suck is irrelevant.

I am comparing the excuse making.

NJChiefsFan 03-18-2013 09:39 PM
I can understand the point that he didn't have much, but I think Smith's style lends to a lack of WR success. Now he certainly didn't have a basket of skill at WR, but I am not sure he would have used them to great lengths anyway. I still think he would on average stick to the safe underneath stuff with Davis.

Despite having a close friend who watches 9er games at my house on a smaller TV, I haven't seen enough to know Crabtree's full development path so far. Just seemed that he took a quick step once the QB switch happened.

Hammock Parties 03-18-2013 09:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9512506)
Please tell me, to whom was Smith supposed to throw down the field over the course of his career?

And do you know anything about the WCO? There has to be a metric or stat on PFF.
Dude even in the WCO there are plenty of intermediate and deep throws.

And it's not like Matt Cassel had all these down-the-field studs in Kansas City.

Alex Smith doesn't throw the ball down the field for one reason and one reason only...he's afraid to.

Alex Smith...throws the ball down the field less than everyone in the NFL save Christian Ponder....that has nothing to do with who's running routes and everything to do with the QB.

'Hamas' Jenkins 03-18-2013 09:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9512506)
Please tell me, to whom was Smith supposed to throw down the field over the course of his career?

And do you know anything about the WCO? There has to be a metric or stat on PFF.
Scary thought:

Reid's WCO has always featured more downfield passing than any other iteration of it. It's not Gruden's system. McNabb and Vick were both aggressive downfield passers.

milkman 03-18-2013 09:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9512500)
Name the 49ers badass, breakout, mother****ing receivers.

Go.

Don't act like he had the same weapons as Ryan or Flacco or Rodgers.
Name the badass receivers that Trent Green had ti throw to in KC.

NJChiefsFan 03-18-2013 09:42 PM
I also think Smith is an upgrade from Cassel. My issue is I don't think it will be enough to bring us anywhere great, so I find myself yet again thinking we need to get a QB eventually. At this point, I would be very happy if they found a QB in this draft to push Alex.

NJChiefsFan 03-18-2013 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 9512517)
Name the badass receivers that Trent Green had ti throw to in KC.
Well Johnny Morton had a badass grenade throw TD celebration, if that counts.

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go to Hell (Post 9512513)
Dude even in the WCO there are plenty of intermediate and deep throws.

And it's not like Matt Cassel had all these down-the-field studs in Kansas City.

Alex Smith doesn't throw the ball down the field for one reason and one reason only...he's afraid to.

Alex Smith...throws the ball down the field less than everyone in the NFL save Christian Ponder....that has nothing to do with who's running routes and everything to do with the QB.
Well, I'd be afraid to as well considering he didn't have dick to throw to over the course of his career.

Look, if Smith had Matt Ryan's receiving corp or Rivers in his prime with Vincent Jackson or Larry Fitzgerald or Megatron or Andre Johnson or Sidney Rice and so on and so forth, and he didn't throw downfield, you'd have a mighty fine point.

But the guy played on a ****ing shit team for the first six years of his career with shit coaches. He had a very good 2011 but still, no downfield threat. He had another very good year in 2012 but still, no downfield threat.

So would you rather have an accurate QB that moves the chains and plays within his and the team's means, or would you rather have a reckless gunslinger that loses games because his receivers suck and he wastes opportunities?

The Franchise 03-18-2013 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 9512516)
Scary thought:

Reid's WCO has always featured more downfield passing than any other iteration of it. It's not Gruden's system. McNabb and Vick were both aggressive downfield passers.
And we're going to run it with a QB that's afraid to throw the ball down the field and would rather take a sack then try and make a play.

This should turn out ok.

philfree 03-18-2013 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 9512517)
Name the badass receivers that Trent Green had ti throw to in KC.
Gonzo caught alot of passes from Teet.

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 09:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 9512517)
Name the badass receivers that Trent Green had ti throw to in KC.
IIRC, Eddie Kennison could at least get down field and was at one point, one of the fastest men in the NFL.

Some of Trent's longest throws were play-action, like his long strikes to Boerichter.

The fact of the matter is that Smith's best receivers were his TE's and running backs. That wasn't his fault.

Hammock Parties 03-18-2013 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9512523)
Well, I'd be afraid to as well considering he didn't have dick to throw to over the course of his career.

Look, if Smith had Matt Ryan's receiving corp or Rivers in his prime with Vincent Jackson or Larry Fitzgerald or Megatron or Andre Johnson or Sidney Rice and so on and so forth, and he didn't throw downfield, you'd have a mighty fine point.

But the guy played on a ****ing shit team for the first six years of his career with shit coaches. He had a very good 2011 but still, no downfield threat. He had another very good year in 2012 but still, no downfield threat.

So would you rather have an accurate QB that moves the chains and plays within his and the team's means, or would you rather have a reckless gunslinger that loses games because his receivers suck and he wastes opportunities?
Dude, we're not talking about 20+ yard throws down the field.

He throws less intermediate routes than Matt Cassel.

Than Matt Cassel.

He is completely averse to risk and does not throw the ball into NFL windows unless he absolutely has to.

The types of throws you saw Matt Cassel completing the last four years are going to be the same shit we see from Alex Smith.

He might complete them at a higher percentage...but he is a dink and dunk QB with a noodle arm who does not throw the ball down the field. End of story.

Who he was throwing to doesn't matter...because other QBs with "meh" WRs throw down the field more. Like...Matt...Cassel.

-King- 03-18-2013 09:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9512529)
IIRC, Eddie Kennison could at least get down field and was at one point, one of the fastest men in the NFL.

Some of Trent's longest throws were play-action, like his long strikes to Boerichter.

The fact of the matter is that Smith's best receivers were his TE's and running backs. That wasn't his fault.
Ironic. Looks like you just described Trent Green.

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 09:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go to Hell (Post 9512533)
Dude, we're not talking about 20+ yard throws down the field.

He throws less intermediate routes than Matt Cassel.

Than Matt Cassel.

He is completely averse to risk and does not throw the ball into NFL windows unless he absolutely has to.

The types of throws you saw Matt Cassel completing the last four years are going to be the same shit we see from Alex Smith.

He might complete them at a higher percentage...but he is a dink and dunk QB with a noodle arm who does not throw the ball down the field. End of story.

Who he was throwing to doesn't matter...because other QBs with "meh" WRs throw down the field more. Like...Matt...Cassel.
I don't really care.

Using this metric to dismiss him as a Matt Cassel clone is ridiculous.

Hammock Parties 03-18-2013 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9512536)
I don't really care.

Using this metric to dismiss him as a Matt Cassel clone is ridiculous.
That's only one part of the equation.

He also takes sacks at an absurd rate.

He also has a lacking arm.

He's also a shitbird on third down.

I think that's enough evidence.

milkman 03-18-2013 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9512529)
IIRC, Eddie Kennison could at least get down field and was at one point, one of the fastest men in the NFL.

Some of Trent's longest throws were play-action, like his long strikes to Boerichter.

The fact of the matter is that Smith's best receivers were his TE's and running backs. That wasn't his fault.
Eddie Kennison, who bounced around the league and did virtually nothing in his career, suudenly became a badass receiver once he hooked up with a QB thT wasn't afraid to throw the deep route.

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by -King- (Post 9512535)
Ironic. Looks like you just described Trent Green.
Yeah, that Eddie Kennison was a bum and slow as ****. And Johnny Morton didn't have a 14 yards per average, either.

Smith will have his best receivers in KC with Bowe, Avery and Fasano. If he sucks ass, get rid of him with no excuses.

philfree 03-18-2013 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go to Hell (Post 9512539)
That's only one part of the equation.

He also takes sacks at an absurd rate.

He also has a lacking arm.

He's also a shitbird on third down.

I think that's enough evidence.
He was avg about 2 sacks a game last year. So 32 last season if he played the full season. I don't even know what's consider good on that front. How many time did Manning get sacked last year?

Hootie 03-18-2013 09:54 PM
as soon as GoChiefs can explain to me how Matt Cassel had 27 TD's and 7 INT's and scored a - PFF rating while Alex Smith has a +25 over his past 24 starts while he uses PFF as his GOSPEL yet wants to say they are the same QB I'll shut up...but he needs to explain to me a site he uses as fact doesn't apply to Alex Smith

Hootie 03-18-2013 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by philfree (Post 9512549)
He was avg about 2 sacks a game last year. So 32 last season if he played the full season. I don't even know what's consider good on that front. How many time did Manning get sacked last year?
comparing any QB's sack total to Manning's is a sham since he literally gets rid of the ball and takes hardly any hits and he's been doing that his entire career

compare Alex Smith's sack total in 2011 to Aaron Rodgers in 2011. That's more fair.

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 9512540)
Eddie Kennison, who bounced around the league and did virtually nothing in his career, suudenly became a badass receiver once he hooked up with a QB thT wasn't afraid to throw the deep route.
Kennison has nearly a 1,000 yards receiving his rookie year with Tony Banks.

Tony Banks.

He then had a couple of down years, mainly due to depression. He signed with Denver and was cut mid-season, joined the Chiefs and played lights out for the better part of five seasons.

The point is, Eddie Kennison ran a 4.29 on his pro day and was a pretty good and reliable receiver, something Alex Smith has never had in his pro career.

SAUTO 03-18-2013 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by philfree (Post 9512527)
Gonzo caught alot of passes from Teet.
and Smith has had Vernon Davis the whole time.
Posted via Mobile Device

philfree 03-18-2013 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512551)
comparing any QB's sack total to Manning's is a sham since he literally gets rid of the ball and takes hardly any hits and he's been doing that his entire career

compare Alex Smith's sack total in 2011 to Aaron Rodgers in 2011. That's more fair.
Yeah I know but I was seeing what elite was in comparison. Roger is a better comparison.

philfree 03-18-2013 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 9512555)
and Smith has had Vernon Davis the whole time.
Posted via Mobile Device
Vernon ****ing davis comapared to teh greatest of all time. Really?

Hammock Parties 03-18-2013 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512550)
as soon as GoChiefs can explain to me how Matt Cassel had 27 TD's and 7 INT's and scored a - PFF rating while Alex Smith has a +25 over his past 24 starts while he uses PFF as his GOSPEL yet wants to say they are the same QB I'll shut up...but he needs to explain to me a site he uses as fact doesn't apply to Alex Smith
It applies to Alex Smith just fine.

He was able to rack up a good QB rating because he made lots of high percentage throws and never took risks.

Matt Cassel is dumb and did more dumb things and took more risks.

He also had a couple of really bad games that brought his rating down...like a -4.7 against the Raiders and a -1.9 against Buffalo.

And we also know he had a bunch of INTs dropped that year.

By the way I never said they are the same QB. But they have similar play styles. Alex got away with that play style more because of his defense.

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go to Hell (Post 9512539)
That's only one part of the equation.

He also takes sacks at an absurd rate.

He also has a lacking arm.

He's also a shitbird on third down.

I think that's enough evidence.
While I believe that metrics are helpful in evaluating players, metrics should not be the only tool in which to evaluate players.

Moneyball and Sabermetrics don't work exclusively in the NFL. Hell, they're only part of the equation in MLB.

Hootie 03-18-2013 10:00 PM
so PFF doesn't have a sophisticated enough rating system to take into account a QB who never takes any "risks" (why take risks if you don't have to?) and never makes any tough throws?

Well **** PFF then. I guess I'll never take that rating system seriously. Seems way too flawed.

cdcox 03-18-2013 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512551)
comparing any QB's sack total to Manning's is a sham since he literally gets rid of the ball and takes hardly any hits and he's been doing that his entire career

compare Alex Smith's sack total in 2011 to Aaron Rodgers in 2011. That's more fair.
Except Rogers took 8 fewer sacks on 60 more dropbacks while throwing the ball further down field for a better completion percentage and 1500 more yards.

Sweet Daddy Hate 03-18-2013 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 9512487)
The excuse making for Alex Smith is already reaching Cassel levels.
Its actually worse. Because we have a supposed "legend" and "guru" at HC( who by the way has NOT been in a gradual yet steady state of decline!/homer ), and a "surefire" GM upgrade( who may or may not have been the trigger man on guys like Rodgers, Mathews, Raji etc.), these guys are getting Full-License for a horrid jackass like Smith. I can uderstand the burning desire to forget almost the last decade of Chiefs football, but that doesn't mean these new cats aren't doing almost EXACTLY the same old song and dance.
Posted via Mobile Device

SAUTO 03-18-2013 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by philfree (Post 9512557)
Vernon ****ing davis comapared to teh greatest of all time. Really?
He's a decent te. He is dangerous.

But it's not about that now. Has to be a Downfield threat
Posted via Mobile Device

Hammock Parties 03-18-2013 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9512559)
While I believe that metrics are helpful in evaluating players, metrics should not be the only tool in which to evaluate players.

Moneyball and Sabermetrics don't work exclusively in the NFL. Hell, they're only part of the equation in MLB.
PFF is simply reflective of what you see on the field, Dane.

Watch Alex Smith play. You will see a QB who:

Has bad pocket presence and takes a lot of sacks.

Doesn't throw the ball down the field.

Has a lacking arm.

Doesn't convert third downs.

Watch him and you'll see all of those things.

Hootie 03-18-2013 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdcox (Post 9512562)
Except Rogers took 8 fewer sacks on 60 more dropbacks while throwing the ball further down field for a better completion percentage and 1500 more yards.
and Rodgers is arguably the best QB in the NFL...

I was just saying...comparing someone's sack total to Peyton Manning's is ridiculous. You know, since his entire game is predicated on not taking sacks and making quick reads.

Hootie 03-18-2013 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go to Hell (Post 9512565)
PFF is simply reflective of what you see on the field, Dane.

Watch Alex Smith play. You will see a QB who:

Has bad pocket presence and takes a lot of sacks.

Doesn't throw the ball down the field.

Has a lacking arm.

Doesn't convert third downs.

Watch him and you'll see all of those things.
and somehow after all of that PFF still rated him as the 8th best NFL QB in 2011?

Damn. PFF sucks. I guess I can no longer take that site serious. Please stop spamming those meaningless ratings.

Hammock Parties 03-18-2013 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512560)
so PFF doesn't have a sophisticated enough rating system to take into account a QB who never takes any "risks" (why take risks if you don't have to?) and never makes any tough throws?

Well **** PFF then. I guess I'll never take that rating system seriously. Seems way too flawed.
I'm sure they'll go out of business now!

FYI it would be ****ing stupid to penalize a QB for something he didn't do.

And FYI, dinking and dunking is worth less points than attacking downfield, so they account for that anyway.

Hootie 03-18-2013 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go to Hell (Post 9512570)
I'm sure they'll go out of business now!

FYI it would be ****ing stupid to penalize a QB for something he didn't do.

And FYI, dinking and dunking is worth less points than attacking downfield, so they account for that anyway.
so I guess despite all of these perceived flaws he's still good enough to be the 8th best QB in the NFL.

Cool! STEAL! KOBE!

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go to Hell (Post 9512565)
PFF is simply reflective of what you see on the field, Dane.

Watch Alex Smith play. You will see a QB who:

Has bad pocket presence and takes a lot of sacks.

Doesn't throw the ball down the field.

Has a lacking arm.

Doesn't convert third downs.

Watch him and you'll see all of those things.
I'll have plenty of chances to watch him this fall.

And if he sucks ass, I'll be amongst the first to call for his head. But given the shit sandwich he's been given over the course of his career, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in Reid's system, with Charles, Bowe, Avery, Fasano, Moeaki and whoever else they bring, in before unilaterally declaring him as a complete failure.

Hammock Parties 03-18-2013 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512572)
so I guess despite all of these perceived flaws he's still good enough to be the 8th best QB in the NFL.

Cool! STEAL! KOBE!
No, he was good enough to be the 8th best QB in one year during his career.

Whether he can repeat that ever again is highly debatable.

Hootie 03-18-2013 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go to Hell (Post 9512574)
No, he was good enough to be the 8th best QB in one year during his career.

Whether he can repeat that ever again is highly debatable.
was Matt Cassel ever a top 10 QB in any 1 year?

Was he ever a top 15?

???

?????

If not I just don't see how they can compare to one another since PFF is the best tool in the NFL to evaluate NFL players (PHIL EMERY SAID SO!!!!)

so therefore you are a hypocrite

DaneMcCloud 03-18-2013 10:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go to Hell (Post 9512574)
No, he was good enough to be the 8th best QB in one year during his career.

Whether he can repeat that ever again is highly debatable.
It IS debatable because he's only done so one out of seven years.

But, he is ascending, not descending, so there is a good chance that will continue.

Hammock Parties 03-18-2013 10:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512575)
was Matt Cassel ever a top 10 QB in any 1 year?

Was he ever a top 15?

???

?????

If not I just don't see how they can compare to one another since PFF is the best tool in the NFL to evaluate NFL players (PHIL EMERY SAID SO!!!!)

so therefore you are a hypocrite
They compare to one another based on their limitations, not their PFF ratings.

You are being obtuse.

BigMeatballDave 03-18-2013 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 9512487)
The excuse making for Alex Smith is already reaching Cassel levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 8295573)
I think people dismiss the idea far too easily.

I've always said a franchise QB is defined by what he does when it matters most.

Smith came up huge on not one, but two drives, late in the game when it mattered the most.
:hmmm:


:)

Hootie 03-18-2013 10:08 PM
Clay gladly stated he was the 18th rated QB for PFF in 2012...but, you know, that stat rates on a cumulative basis so he was 18th rated QB after 8 games when most every other QB had 16 games worth of points.

so he'll use PFF to bash on Smith but then he'll conveniently leave out 2011 because it doesn't sell his story

just like he posted 2011 PFF for Sean Smith because it was a better indicator of what player he was than 2012 Sean Smith who started all 16 games...

he's a real genious I tell you

Hootie 03-18-2013 10:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go to Hell (Post 9512577)
They compare to one another based on their limitations, not their PFF ratings.

You are being obtuse.
Wrong. They compare in no way, shape or form.

Matt Cassel is an absolute TERRIBLE comparison for Alex Smith. Awful.

Hammock Parties 03-18-2013 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512581)
Wrong. They compare in no way, shape or form.

Matt Cassel is an absolute TERRIBLE comparison for Alex Smith. Awful.
Facts are facts, Hootie.

In the case of Alex Smith vs Matt Cassel, their careers are similar, their abilities are similar, the way they play football is similar.

I'm not going to list all of this shit again. None of it can be argued.

You're just being a little shitbird.

philfree 03-18-2013 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go to Hell (Post 9512574)
No, he was good enough to be the 8th best QB in one year during his career.

Whether he can repeat that ever again is highly debatable.
In reality the first four years of his career doesn't have anything to do with what kind of QB he is now. His last 30 starts he's put up a 96.5 QB rating. That's his most recent work. That will be more indictative of the QB his is right now then his career stat line. I don't know how many sacks he had over that span. It'd interesting to know though.

Hootie 03-18-2013 10:11 PM
Wrong.

If you want to say Alex Smith is average, then I'll agree. He is average.

If you want to say Alex Smith compares to Matt Cassel in how they play football, or their level of play...then you're just a ****ing moron.

Remember, my track record with QB's is much, much better than yours.

Hammock Parties 03-18-2013 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess (Post 9512580)
just like he posted 2011 PFF for Sean Smith because it was a better indicator of what player he was than 2012 Sean Smith who started all 16 games...
He was dead last in the league this year in first downs allowed.

Now ain't that some shit?

So tell me Hootie...is Sean Smith the worst CB in the NFL, or is he the guy who was dead last in the league in first downs allowed?

Pick one!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:23 PM.
Page 5 of 7 1234 5 67
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.