Chiefs Kareem Hunt or Sammy Watkins? - Page 2

JakeF · 12-02-2018, 04:42 PM

Does our offense miss Kareem Hunt or Sammy Watkins more?

Naptown Chief · 12-03-2018, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Basileus777

Watkins. Teams can much more easily roll their coverages when Hill and Kelce are the only real passing threats. Hunt was never dictating defensive alignments.

My sentiments exactly. Sucks that Hunt is gone but we didn't rush all that much to begin with. Williams looked pretty good today, albeit against the Fade. Let's hold our judgments until after we've had more than 36 hours to create a game plan for Ware/Williams

BryanBusby · 12-03-2018, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj56dt58

I'll put it this way..Clark ****ed up. And where did this exemption shit come from? It used to be a suspension which you could appeal and keep playing during the appeal. All a bunch of bs imo

What the **** were they going to appeal? Good ****ing god people

CaliforniaChief · 12-03-2018, 01:13 AM

We scored 40 points.

htismaqe · 12-03-2018, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JakeF

I believe the exemption list was invented because the NFLPA refused to allow Hardy or Peterson to be disciplined after they beat the shit out of women.

Yep.

It's been around for 2 or 3 years. It isn't new and Hunt is like the 5th player to be on it.

Sassy Squatch · 12-03-2018, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj56dt58

I'll put it this way..Clark ****ed up. And where did this exemption shit come from? It used to be a suspension which you could appeal and keep playing during the appeal. All a bunch of bs imo

Clark Hunt ****ed up? How about Kareem Hunt ****ed up. Repeatedly.

El Jefe · 12-03-2018, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Basileus777

Watkins. Teams can much more easily roll their coverages when Hill and Kelce are the only real passing threats. Hunt was never dictating defensive alignments.

I agree with you. Watkins "when healthy" is a legit #1 receiver, and while yes Hunt is/was a beast, a #1 WR opens up way more looks for Hill and Kelce.

DJ's left nut · 12-03-2018, 09:39 AM

Hunt and it's not close.

Hunt's value in the run game and his ability to force the edges AND play in the passing game added a dimension across the offense. You have Hill challenging out wide, Kelce in the seams and Hunt between the tackles and the short pass plays (with HR ability). We had a true 3 dimensional offense.

Watkins makes some things easier downfield, but he doesn't change the character of the entire offense. This was a 4-legged stool on offense that had a leg kicked out from under it. Watkins being down isn't a missing leg; is just maybe losing the foot off one; gives it a little bit of wobble but little else.

Hunts loss is far worse.

Mecca · 12-03-2018, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj56dt58

I'll put it this way..Clark ****ed up. And where did this exemption shit come from? It used to be a suspension which you could appeal and keep playing during the appeal. All a bunch of bs imo

It's another one of those things where Goodell does whatever he wants. I'm sure that stuff will be a major issue in the next CBA.

Red Dawg · 12-03-2018, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar

135 rushing yards halfway through the 3rd quarter is one dimensional?

Mahomes yards dont count

TEX · 12-03-2018, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Dawg

Mahomes yards dont count

Exactly. Ad He NEVER should lead the team in rushing. I want NO PART of Mahomes being factored in the rushing stats so heavily.

htismaqe · 12-03-2018, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEX

Exactly. Ad He NEVER should lead the team in rushing. I want NO PART of Mahomes being factored in the rushing stats so heavily.

What should be is different than what is.

Mahomes rushing yards absolutely DO count.

If they don't, then all of the whinging about the Ravens over in the other thread is just hilarious.

DJ's left nut · 12-03-2018, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

What should be is different than what is.

Mahomes rushing yards absolutely DO count.

If they don't, then all of the whinging about the Ravens over in the other thread is just hilarious.

They don't count towards determining the efficacy of your running game. When Smith was going out there and running for 60 yards, were any of us eager to talk about how much better he made the rushing offense look? I suspect not.

When we talk about the running game yesterday we're looking for signs of sustainability and asking how predictive the game was. What we saw yesterday was not sustainable and we'd better hope it wasn't predictive.

I think it was. We saw what happens when your RB has no first step to speak of; Williams somehow looked much better than Ware. It was just a baaaaad sign for our running offense, regardless of how many total rush yards they put up.

htismaqe · 12-03-2018, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

They don't count towards determining the efficacy of your running game. When Smith was going out there and running for 60 yards, were any of us eager to talk about how much better he made the rushing offense look? I suspect not.

When we talk about the running game yesterday we're looking for signs of sustainability and asking how predictive the game was. What we saw yesterday was not sustainable and we'd better hope it wasn't predictive.

I think it was. We saw what happens when your RB has no first step to speak of; Williams somehow looked much better than Ware. It was just a baaaaad sign for our running offense, regardless of how many total rush yards they put up.

Then I will submit that there's a whole lot of useless bellyaching going on in the thread about the Ravens. QB rushing yards don't equal an effective running game so the Ravens are absolutely screwed. Better let Debbie and the Downers know...

TEX · 12-03-2018, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

What should be is different than what is.

Mahomes rushing yards absolutely DO count.

If they don't, then all of the whinging about the Ravens over in the other thread is just hilarious.

I may not have been clear. I DONT want him to be counted on to lead the team in rushing, for fear of injury. I feel if that ever is the plan, then it's a very dumb plan IMO.

MIAdragon · 12-03-2018, 10:27 AM

Can either play above average in the secondary?

View Poll Results: Does our offense miss Kareem Hunt or Sammy Watkins more?
Hunt	79	64.23%
Watkins	44	35.77%
Voters: 123. You may not vote on this poll

12-02-2018, 04:42 PM
JakeF MVP Join Date: May 2017 Casino cash: $9990400	Kareem Hunt or Sammy Watkins? Does our offense miss Kareem Hunt or Sammy Watkins more?
Posts: 10,605

12-03-2018, 01:13 AM	#18
CaliforniaChief #RIPAce Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: So Cal Casino cash: $12312899	We scored 40 points.
Posts: 17,326	2 0

12-03-2018, 09:39 AM	#22
DJ's left nut Sauntering Vaguely Downwards Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Columbia, Mo Casino cash: $2689099	Hunt and it's not close. Hunt's value in the run game and his ability to force the edges AND play in the passing game added a dimension across the offense. You have Hill challenging out wide, Kelce in the seams and Hunt between the tackles and the short pass plays (with HR ability). We had a true 3 dimensional offense. Watkins makes some things easier downfield, but he doesn't change the character of the entire offense. This was a 4-legged stool on offense that had a leg kicked out from under it. Watkins being down isn't a missing leg; is just maybe losing the foot off one; gives it a little bit of wobble but little else. Hunts loss is far worse. __________________ "If there's a god, he's laughing at us.....and our football team..." "When you look at something through rose colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags."
Posts: 60,793

12-03-2018, 10:27 AM	#30
MIAdragon Someone pass the antifreeze Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Miami (North Cuba) Casino cash: $1277819	Can either play above average in the secondary?
Posts: 15,776