KCSLC2008 605 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 He sure seems like a game manager to me. How bout, an Andy Reid Offensive Execution Manager?? Let's see: 1. He doesn't take what many consider "risky" shots downfield...even it's open 2. His only real checkdowns at the LOS are: A run play, or a WR Screen 3. When the pocket breaks down, even a little bit, he pisses his pants and either runs or throws it out of bounds. (Never stands tall in the pocket and delivers) I;'m not saying AS11 is a bad QB, as a matter of fact, I think he is the right man for the job at this time for this offense. However, If that's not a Game Manager, I don't what you call it... If the shoe fits..... You skipped my whole point, game manager isn't a term to describe what a QB does, it's a condescending term used as an insult. That's my objection. 1. He's taken those shots in SF to Vernon Davis, anticipation throws in tight windows, often 30+ yards. Granted, besides a few like the one from our endzone against Philadelphia, he doesn't do it here much. He's certainly taken open shots downfield like in the playoff game, though I guess missing some or many qualifies as not taking them according to you. 2. RB and WR checkdowns are the norm, as you throw to a TE when he's not the checkdown. Screens are common and effective in the league. As far as not checking down, less of that happened in SF and last year when the oline was clicking. We'll get to that point by week 12, IMO. 3. He has stepped up in the pocket a little bit, to say he doesn't is an exaggeration. Never is another stupid word that rarely applies, including standing tall in the pocket - which he has done, more last year than this. He doesn't piss his pants, he adjusts to the pressure. Oline has improved and has gotten more blame than warranted by some, but it still lends to why he escapes pressure. Taking a sack, intentional grounding, hit while throws aren't exactly smart. Can and should he get better? Sure, but I'm not taking your subjective word for it. (Yes, we're all subjective.) He has to adjust as the oline adjusts. When the oline gels, if he's still bailing, I'll put more emphasis. Again, yes, he has not done it perfectly even to a new oline. He bears some fault, I know. The shoe doesn't fit, as game manager means someone who can't step it up and make plays. Smith has done that. Why don't we just stick to the poor, average, above average/good, great, elite categories and avoid NFL-slurs? Again, you won't get this type of reaction for saying he's average or mediocre. I might disagree, but ehh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mongo 92 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Chiefs WRs do drop a lot of Alex Smith's passes26 posted by Joel Thorman on Oct 20, 2014 Colin Kaepernick's had 7.1% of his passes dropped this season, 4th most in NFL. Alex Smith's had the most at 9.6%. #49ers #Niners #Chiefs— Gary Althiser (@NFLGary) October 20, 2014 He's also the most accurate quarterback, according to PFF. His accuracy is misleading since he doesn't attempt many difficult throws. I'm sure he leads the league in dump offs and aborted pass attempts too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 605 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 His accuracy is misleading since he doesn't attempt many difficult throws. I'm sure he leads the league in dump offs and aborted pass attempts too. I agree, I would still object to those who say, "how can he only complete 63% when his passes are short?" These drops are the reason. Smith and system (and targets) is why the attempts and YPA/air yards aren't longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsy 1,137 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 You skipped my whole point, game manager isn't a term to describe what a QB does, it's a condescending term used as an insult. That's my objection. 1. He's taken those shots in SF to Vernon Davis, anticipation throws in tight windows, often 30+ yards. Granted, besides a few like the one from our endzone against Philadelphia, he doesn't do it here much. He's certainly taken open shots downfield like in the playoff game, though I guess missing some or many qualifies as not taking them according to you. 2. RB and WR checkdowns are the norm, as you throw to a TE when he's not the checkdown. Screens are common and effective in the league. As far as not checking down, less of that happened in SF and last year when the oline was clicking. We'll get to that point by week 12, IMO. 3. He has stepped up in the pocket a little bit, to say he doesn't is an exaggeration. Never is another stupid word that rarely applies, including standing tall in the pocket - which he has done, more last year than this. He doesn't piss his pants, he adjusts to the pressure. Oline has improved and has gotten more blame than warranted by some, but it still lends to why he escapes pressure. Taking a sack, intentional grounding, hit while throws aren't exactly smart. Can and should he get better? Sure, but I'm not taking your subjective word for it. (Yes, we're all subjective.) He has to adjust as the oline adjusts. When the oline gels, if he's still bailing, I'll put more emphasis. Again, yes, he has not done it perfectly even to a new oline. He bears some fault, I know. The shoe doesn't fit, as game manager means someone who can't step it up and make plays. Smith has done that. Why don't we just stick to the poor, average, above average/good, great, elite categories and avoid NFL-slurs? Again, you won't get this type of reaction for saying he's average or mediocre. I might disagree, but ehh. Well...I guess. The difference to me is, that I don't think Game Manager is a condecending term. I think Smith is a Top 12 QB; or above average qb. I mean, quite frankly, I think he is the best qb in the league right now, for this offense. We don't have elite recievers or a good oline, so IMO, you need someone who is mobile, fairly accurate, makes good decisions, and who can efficiently manage the offense. I suppose that's were the confusion comes in.. You believe that the "game manager" title is a bad thing, I look at it not so bad... Either way, I like AS11, and I do believe his "game management" oops, I mean efficient qb play can take the team where it wants to go.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Alex Smith had a good game because that's what he is -- a B- QB. He's conservative. He's a caretaker, not a play maker. He has no interest in throwing deep because he doesn't want to risk an INT and he knows he has little zip on a deep throw. We saw versus TEN what happens when he forces deep throws. They float as if they are helium balloons. He's a short to intermediate passer between the hashes. This is why he grades in the middle of the pack by any statistical measure I know of. If you want a great QB who hits the bomb, you better look elsewhere. Sunday's win was great, but its hardly as if Al led a prolific Elway/Montana/Marino game winning drive. We won by a 48 yard FG. Good enough, barely. Just like Al. I can't believe we are still debating this. Every time he wins, team TFal runs screaming, "See? I told you so." I'm not impressed. I agree with primarily. However, a real WR like brown, Johnson, green, etc would change things big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsy 1,137 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I agree with primarily. However, a real WR like brown, Johnson, green, etc would change things big time. Maybe...I don't know. He did take some shots in the Tenn. game, but they were with Avery. Maybe both Reid and Smith would take more shots downfield if they had one of those guys. I would bet that Reid was "hoping" for that downfield threat with AJJ and Avery, but sincy thet have such "shitty" hands, that plan has been scrapped, and replaced with a clock management/ dink and donk approach.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Maybe...I don't know. He did take some shots in the Tenn. game, but they were with Avery. Maybe both Reid and Smith would take more shots downfield if they had one of those guys. I would bet that Reid was "hoping" for that downfield threat with AJJ and Avery, but sincy thet have such "shitty" hands, that plan has been scrapped, and replaced with a clock management/ dink and donk approach.... Those guys get wide open and catch the ball. They also fight for it. Dalton has a weak ass arm and he just throws it out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 605 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Well...I guess. The difference to me is, that I don't think Game Manager is a condecending term. I think Smith is a Top 12 QB; or above average qb. I mean, quite frankly, I think he is the best qb in the league right now, for this offense. We don't have elite recievers or a good oline, so IMO, you need someone who is mobile, fairly accurate, makes good decisions, and who can efficiently manage the offense. I suppose that's were the confusion comes in.. You believe that the "game manager" title is a bad thing, I look at it not so bad... Either way, I like AS11, and I do believe his "game management" oops, I mean efficient qb play can take the team where it wants to go.. Sorry about that, I guess I should make a Chiefs' fan exception or just apply my pet peeve to media types using that term. Though it's not necessarily obvious, I wouldn't apply that term to anyone. I feel it just explains away, defers to everyone else, makes the game sound so simple a caveman could do it (sorry cavemen!), or qualifies success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kychief 239 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 he fired a laser running to his left back across his body to bowe for a 1st down during the drive to win the game.. 17yrds between 2 defenders...helluva a clutch pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Interesting thread. He is definitely not a gun slinger. I really have no problem with that. If he threw down the field and let the WR go get it, he would have 56 INTs. We don't have any WR that can run with a legit CB and out jump them. Bowe can out jump many. Jenkins can out run many. But no one can compete at both. Until then, Smith is the clear cut (run away from the rush) (don't count on the WR to make a play) guy. I honestly can't think of a better fit. Russell Wilson maybe. I am very pleased having Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azchief21 5,278 Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 That's a really stupid condescending term. He's more than that and less than great. Gaah! I hate that term. "Game manager" - it was a derogatory term used to downgrade Smith and now it's caught on. It also downgrades other QBs, too. It's not that it is wholly inaccurate. It's that it originated as an insult, an explanation for why Smith was doing well here by those who were his critics. I'm not saying the term was made for Smith, but rather the connection of that word to him was made by those who in the media felt he could not win at the NFL level. Jamie Dukes, etc. People then repeat it, sometimes not intending the insult. I'm fine with saying he's an average QB. In fact, I won't argue too much (just state my disagreement) with those who say mediocre. But, no offense, I f***ing hate the game manager moniker. It's condescending and by definition leaves no room for any credit/worth as a QB. I'd rather people just say he sucks or is a bust. I'd disagree, but then those who didn't agree wouldn't accept it. People accept the game manager moniker because they don't realize it's an insult. (So is bust, but people recognize that as an insult and will chime in if they disagree.) Aaron Rodgers says the term is condescending and that Smith is more than that. A game manager to me is a guy who never really does anything terrible to lose a game and never really does anything spectacular to win a game and for the most part that's Smith. I said in my post he's an average QB and I'll never say he's terrible. I would think terrible, horrible, a bust, Tebow-like would be condescending terms. So in an effort not to offend any of my fellow Chiefs fans, I will not refer to him as a game manager. He is the QB of my favorite team. Whatever I call him, I really want him to do really well every week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 605 Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Thanks for your comment, AZChief. I just feel people will argue with terrible, horrible, bust whereas game manager, no one will argue, despite the fact it basically says you can't make clutch plays, play-make, or do anything spectacular. Or that your team carries you everywhere. We definitely have a good team around Smith, but he contributes to defensive rest, allowing the defensive to be aggressive with leads, good field position, and will check out of a pass play to give Charles better opportunities (yes, Charles is elite, so put opportunity plus elite and bam!). Smith has shown clutch in the past, mostly with SF and one or two here. I'd like to see more. He's made plays like he did in the Colts game, without Charles, who a game manager would absolutely need to get 44 points. Defense helped get the 44, but could have done more to prevent 45, like a game manager team's defense would. Smith could have mustered a field goal or TD more if he were great. That's why I prefer the poor, average, good, great, elite, etc. categories over monikers. I feel like once labeled as a game manager, people try to explain away any success he has. If we score a lot, look at the creativity and weapons! If the defense plays for 20 minutes only, look at the defense! If Charles gets a lot of rushing yards in Reid's pass-happy offense, it's look at Charles! I admit that we should praise the defense and Charles, but it feels like it freezes Smith at adequate and adjust everyone else around him to good or bad. It gives nothing to protecting the ball. checking into the right play, and the biggest thing, when he does make a play with his arm or legs. It treats those things as easy, the norm, not a craft or talent. There are more talents than arm strength or gunslinging. I'd prefer saying he's slightly above average - which still takes in that definition of yours but gives a nod to actual play, not style. Game managing is a style, not a capability. Above average or heck, average or mediocre is a capability. Some feel the style masks the capability and makes things easier, but that doesn't mean he couldn't get more yards (and INTs) in a more aggressive system, it just means they employ a good system for him. System QB is ok. And thanks for the reference to not trying to offend. I'm sorry if it comes off that way. I'm just passionate about certain pet peeves, like "could care less" vs. "couldn't care less," etc. and while I view game manager to originate from an offensive meaning/term, I think it has evolved a bit and despite my objections, it doesn't offend me, so much as peeve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsy 1,137 Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I think it's fair to say, that we all "like" AS11. And most of us believe that he is the best man for this offense. Like someone posted above, the only other qb that would probably work in this current system would be Russell Wilson. The money right now is invested in the defense. We have a shaky oline, pedestrian WR's, a good, soon to be great TE and a couple of good/great RB's. All AS11 has to do, is not turn it over. That's what he's asked to do, and he's been pretty good at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 605 Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I agree with primarily. However, a real WR like brown, Johnson, green, etc would change things big time. Those guys get wide open and catch the ball. They also fight for it. Dalton has a weak ass arm and he just throws it out there. Football is so context based, team based, opponent based, game situation based that we are rarely going to see one factor, like having a Green or Johnson, swing from one extreme (conservative) to another (aggressive/dominant), but I agree with CaliChief. If Alex had Johnson, would Smith be Stafford in TDs and yards? No way. Would Alex be where Smith is now? Nope. Would that be good enough to make offense or system not an issue? I think so. Some feel Smith will be Smith even with a superstar and some might feel he'd put up unrealistic numbers for him. Neither are true, but he'd have better numbers that help us more. Maybe we beat Denver or SF with Johnson this year? Heck, I'd settle for SF's Stevie Johnson as our number 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Calichief Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Football is so context based, team based, opponent based, game situation based that we are rarely going to see one factor, like having a Green or Johnson, swing from one extreme (conservative) to another (aggressive/dominant), but I agree with CaliChief. If Alex had Johnson, would Smith be Stafford in TDs and yards? No way. Would Alex be where Smith is now? Nope. Would that be good enough to make offense or system not an issue? I think so. Some feel Smith will be Smith even with a superstar and some might feel he'd put up unrealistic numbers for him. Neither are true, but he'd have better numbers that help us more. Hhh? What is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 605 Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Hhh? What is that? I can't quote from my computer and when I quoted from my phone and came here, I couldn't type a response without pressing enter after the quotes and some text. Hhh was just my text I used before coming back here to the computer to edit. Someone told me Firefox works better that Internet Explorer for this site, but I didn't to DL or change browsers just for one site. Sorry, Coalition website, I still love you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I can't quote from my computer and when I quoted from my phone and came here, I couldn't type a response without pressing enter after the quotes and some text. Hhh was just my text I used before coming back here to the computer to edit. Someone told me Firefox works better that Internet Explorer for this site, but I didn't to DL or change browsers just for one site. Sorry, Coalition website, I still love you. I thought I was behind on my internet abbreviations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Football is so context based, team based, opponent based, game situation based that we are rarely going to see one factor, like having a Green or Johnson, swing from one extreme (conservative) to another (aggressive/dominant), but I agree with CaliChief. If Alex had Johnson, would Smith be Stafford in TDs and yards? No way. Would Alex be where Smith is now? Nope. Would that be good enough to make offense or system not an issue? I think so. Some feel Smith will be Smith even with a superstar and some might feel he'd put up unrealistic numbers for him. Neither are true, but he'd have better numbers that help us more. Maybe we beat Denver or SF with Johnson this year? Heck, I'd settle for SF's Stevie Johnson as our number 2. It would make us much better. No stacking the box. More shots downfield. More confidence for smith. No he would not be a star but the team would improve GREATLY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 605 Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I thought I was behind on my internet abbreviations. Hhh... I mean, Hahaha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 605 Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I won't make the same conclusion as the author yet (that Smith has justified his contract already) but some statistics are in this article. I know some or most of it is system and YAC, just sharing: http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2240513-alex-smith-is-justifying-big-contract-with-efficient-playmaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handswarmer 645 Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 some of the responses in this thread are really funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 some of the responses in this thread are really funny Hhh back at ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilyous2 884 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Fuck that. When Alex learns to throw the deep shots to very open receivers (Jenkins TWICE) then I'll say he had a nice game. Plodding down the field is great and all, but he's gotta take the big chunks when they are there for the taking. "Plodding" down the field was the game plan. That allowed Rivers the ball for only 21 minutes compared to our 39. You take the deep shot to get big chunks, and most of the time you give up the ball to the other guys by having to punt...or worse. Even if you succeed and score, it gives the ball back to the other team faster and allows their offense to develop a rhythm. I don't like sitting back and waiting for the home run. I like to see football played they way the Royals play baseball. Wear the other guys defenses down. Make them frustrated, out-of-breath, and paranoid. Run to set up the pass, then take only the 20 yard chunks when a guy is clearly open. We beat the friggin Chargers in their stadium that way. And we humiliated the Patriots. You play the style that is best for your personnel. When we have a team that has a QB with an accurate cannon for an arm and three or four dominant receivers, then fine. But we don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kychief 239 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 teach'em Bil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mongo 92 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 some of the responses in this thread are really funny I'll bite. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.