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

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Better? In terms of individual play? Probably not.

Better in terms of value and performance? I think you can make a good case for trading for Carson Palmer instead (lower draft pick cost, even if you bump it up to convince the Raiders to do it) or signing a Kyle Orton/Jason Campbell/Ryan Fitzpatrick type, instead.

You might get slightly lesser performance from the QB, but the lower cost in picks/salary adds quite a bit of value.

No.

None of those guys is even close to Smith in production or intangibles. Orton would have been the closest, but he tried to retire last year, retired this year...and I don't think he would have came back here anyway.

Something tells me he has less than stellar memories of his time in KC.

Call it a hunch.

And now I know why they call you 'Claynus.' It's because you post some truly stupid shit.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

No.

None of those guys is even close to Smith in production or intangibles. Orton would have been the closest, but he tried to retire last year, retired this year...and I don't think he would have came back here anyway.

Something tells me he has less than stellar memories of his time in KC.

Call it a hunch.

And now I know why they call you 'Claynus.' It's because you post some truly stupid shit.

Uhh...You missed on that one. Duncan is plugged in and very respected around here. He just shares an avatar with Claynus.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

No.

None of those guys is even close to Smith in production or intangibles. Orton would have been the closest, but he tried to retire last year, retired this year...and I don't think he would have came back here anyway.

Something tells me he has less than stellar memories of his time in KC.

Call it a hunch.

And now I know why they call you 'Claynus.' It's because you post some truly stupid shit.

You're incorrect about the production. Go look at the numbers of each of the guys I listed. Palmer was having a tremendous year before getting hurt and out-performing Smith in most of the key areas. Orton and Fitzpatrick also had very strong seasons. Fitz was a little better than Alex Smith (With a better 1-2 punch in Andre Johnson and DeAndre Hopkins than Bowe and Kelce). Orton was a little worse (with Sammy Watkins and very little else around him).

"Intangibles" is the most overrated/overused buzzphrase in sports. The guys the media talk about having great intangibles or being great clubhouse guys rarely are (Mike Moustakas is a great example of this, actually). So I pay no real attention to the concept of "intangibles."

Oh, and no one calls me "Claynus," Your and idiot. Go look at the name next to my posts again.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

You're incorrect about the production. Go look at the numbers of each of the guys I listed. Palmer was having a tremendous year before getting hurt and out-performing Smith in most of the key areas. Orton and Fitzpatrick also had very strong seasons. Fitz was a little better than Alex Smith (With a better 1-2 punch in Andre Johnson and DeAndre Hopkins than Bowe and Kelce). Orton was a little worse (with Sammy Watkins and very little else around him).

"Intangibles" is the most overrated/overused buzzphrase in sports. The guys the media talk about having great intangibles or being great clubhouse guys rarely are (Mike Moustakas is a great example of this, actually). So I pay no real attention to the concept of "intangibles."

Oh, and no one calls me "Claynus," Your and idiot. Go look at the name next to my posts again.

Palmer has Larry Fitzgerald and an Oline, and calling Johnson and Hopkins a 'better 1-2 punch than Bowe and Kelce' is like saying Montana was slightly better than Boomer Esiason in the 80s. Fitz had a WAY better supporting cast around him, and still wound up with the same record as Smith. Orton had those numbers BECAUSE they had no running game, and he retired rather than be Buffalo's starter and HE NEVER WOULD HAVE COME BACK HERE ANYWAY.

I don't care what your name is to me. You're Claynus 2 to me.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

Palmer has Larry Fitzgerald and an Oline, and calling Johnson and Hopkins a 'better 1-2 punch than Bowe and Kelce' is like saying Montana was slightly better than Boomer Esiason in the 80s. Fitz had a WAY better supporting cast around him, and still wound up with the same record as Smith. Orton had those numbers BECAUSE they had no running game, and he retired rather than be Buffalo's starter and HE NEVER WOULD HAVE COME BACK HERE ANYWAY.

I don't care what your name is to me. You're Claynus 2 to me.

Larry Fitz is not what he once was... though he's still a quality receiver, the apparently huge gap you perceive between him and Bowe doesn't really track with reality. Larry Fitzgerald is 31 and has put up Dwayne Bowe-level numbers the past 3 years. He had 30 more yards than Bowe this season and a nearly identical YPC. He has averaged less than 12 YPC the previous two seasons, too.

The Cardinals' offensive line is a better unit than the Chiefs, but the Chiefs also would have a better OL had they kept those two 2nd round picks and used one of those on a quality OL player.

I said Fitz had better receiving options. Hopkins very good, but Johnson is also in that "Not as good as he used to be or you think he is" territory. Johnson an Hopkins combined for 161 catches and 2,146 yards (13.3 YPC). Bowe and Kelce combined for 127 catches and 1,616 yards (12.7 YPC). And they did that while garnering 37 percent of targets. Hopkins and Johnson got 56 percent of the Texans targets.

So yeah, Hopkins and Johnson are a better 1-2 punch. But it isn't this gaping cavern of a gap that you seem to think it is.

Every situation is a little bit different. I'm not saying any of those guys would have crushed the numbers that Alex Smith has put up the past two years. Just that any of them could have put up similar numbers (even if a little lesser) at a much lower cost, and it is unlikely to have really cost the Chiefs anything they "accomplished" last year or this year.

MAYBE they go 10-6 last year instead of 11-5. Still make the playoffs and still are the top wildcard.

MAYBE they lose a game this year they won. Still didn't make the playoffs, so it doesn't matter. (Unless you place great stock in a moral victory like back-to-back winning seasons).