Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud
It's pretty clear that most of this forum doesn't know how to react.
For the duration of the offseason, a majority of members have slammed the fact that Dorsey didn't re-sign Sean Smith and that he didn't bring in more pass rushers or cornerbacks. The majority thought the defense was going to be a Work In Progress and that the offense was going to be amazing and make up for it.
Lo and behold, the offense started off slow yet the defense picked up right where it left off last year without Houston, holding high scoring offenses to season low's while young players see a ton of playing time.
The Chiefs thoroughly dominated the Colts, Raiders and Jets defensively and the offense is finally clicking.
It just seems like most people here can't handle the fact that the Chiefs are a very good, if not great, football team.
|
Kicked dog syndrome.
Though there does remain real room for conversation at QB. Sure, the offense looked better yesterday but it tended to look its best with Foles under center. Now, for the good plays Foles made downfield, he missed on some short passes that Smith wouldn't have and it impacted the scoreboard. But there's a real discussion as to whether that improvement downfield more than offset the losses short and the lost mobility (though Smith's not looking as spry these days either).
Man it would've been nice had that game happened just like that with Smith in charge. And really, it might have - Smith went deep twice in his first 3 attempts, correct? There was clearly a commitment to the deep ball. And neither throw to Hill was amazing - the first was a badly underthrown ball that Hill did a nice job adjusting and shielding the DB and the second was just badly blown coverage for an easy pitch and catch. They weren't exactly signs of a sustainable downfield model.
There are still unanswered questions on offense.