kcxiv 35 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I guess you're a dice-roller and I'm not, but there's a lot more to this than being merely risk-averse: I just watched that play for old-times sake, and it's still a terrible throw on a broken play in which the Patriots seemingly lose the ability to make a tackle or cover a receiver. That play represents one of the worst defensive efforts of all time. You disrespect NFL defenses by suggesting that the Chiefs would be going somewhere if Smith throws that pass to any of his receivers. Manning Light is watching football from home this post-season. Manning Light would have participated in zero Super Bowls if not for his elite defense bailing him out when he threw up balls like the one to Tyree and they got picked off instead of being caught or harmlessly falling to the ground. In 2007, Manning Light was 0-6 in games against teams that scored more than 21 points against the Giants' defense. Don't put Manning Light as the model for Smith to emulate. Manning Light has often been the weak light in numerous winning team efforts. He also had 9 TD passes to 1 int during his last play off run he threw for somethign like 29 touchdowns that year. He had a great year. Yes, he will throw the interception, but 2 superbowls is 2 superbowls especially when your favorite team hasnt even came close in 45 years. 23/32 277 3 td's 0 int 21/33 330 3 td's 1 int 32/58 316 2td's 0 int 30/40 296 1 td 0 int regular season he had 29TD to 16 int's that year he threw for 4,933 yards. So he's had a few bad years, but guess what? so have the Chiefs for 45 straight years. So, you bet ya, i would trade some interceptions for a Superbowl Win. Sad that you wouldnt. Them almost good enoughs dont cut it for me anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 He also had 9 TD passes to 1 int during his last play off run he threw for somethign like 29 touchdowns that year. He had a great year. Yes, he will throw the interception, but 2 superbowls is 2 superbowls especially when your favorite team hasnt even came close in 45 years. 23/32 277 3 td's 0 int 21/33 330 3 td's 1 int 32/58 316 2td's 0 int 30/40 296 1 td 0 int regular season he had 29TD to 16 int's that year he threw for 4,933 yards. So he's had a few bad years, but guess what? so have the Chiefs for 45 straight years. So, you bet ya, i would trade some interceptions for a Superbowl Win. Sad that you wouldnt. Them almost good enoughs dont cut it for me anymore. We're talking about a type of QB, not a specific QB, plus, we're talking about a specific team, not the Chiefs. If we wanted 2 SBs with Manning, it'd be easier to be a Giants fan. Put Manning on the Chiefs and I think we're still waiting. We wouldn't be trading a few interceptions for a few SB wins, we'd be trading mostly good decisions that sometimes don't work out for some bad that sometimes pay off. Sure, that could be a SB or it could not. No one is talking about trading the results. You can't remove the uncertainty. If you want to describe a QB who overcame stupid INTs with a great defense as a choice, why not just stick to Manning and Rodgers who don't make the stupid INTs? We're talking about who we'd want to draft, right? Making stupid decisions that sometimes pay off isn't a good alternative. Pining for a great QB who makes good decisions with some risk, is. I realize PhataLerror brought up Manning Light, not you, but I can't see why when it was Door A (Smith) or Door B, you didn't just say Door C (Rodgers/Manning/Brees/etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcxiv 35 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 We cant just put Manning on the Chiefs and we might be waiting you do that, everything changes, the way you draft changes, how you build a football team changes. No one knows what would happen. To many variables once your QB is locked in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 We cant just put Manning on the Chiefs and we might be waiting you do that, everything changes, the way you draft changes, how you build a football team changes. No one knows what would happen. To many variables once your QB is locked in. True. That's why I objected to your talk about trading a few INTs for a few SBs. That's not the trade. The process is the trade and I didn't want you to feel we did miss out on SBs by our QB decisions; whatif games always look rosier, but there's a good chance that we still are waiting. One could say that the way we did things produced zero, so any alternative can't be worse. But it doesn't work that way. The organizations make decisions in foresight, not hindsight. Teams have won both with and without drafted QBs. I like the draft, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that the organization shouldn't rule out the best trade, the best FA signing they believe, because of other QB signings or trades of the past under different regimes - every team, every QB, every regime is different, no matter how often people like to throw around cliches of "the definition of insanity" or "history repeats itself." As you said, too many variables. Any situation can be different - all you can do is weigh all available options with your current situation. You make the best decisions, ranging from short term to long term, FA to trades to draft. You keep an open mind and try things. Don't be afraid and be accountable. When organizations make decisions for quick fixes and job security, that is bad. But if a coach and GM with their history has their good faith belief in a free agent or trade, I'd give them some benefit of the doubt that either their guy will pan out or they are looking still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 It's like searching for a job. You can apply to every one you see and the belief is you will get one. But with each job application you have to be right for that job, picked from others, etc. It's a choice from every employer. That's why I can't just accept the idea that of 45 years wouldn't ONE of those GMs picked a QB early or in a whole season, wouldn't ONE receiver make it into the endzone? Not if different years have different reaches, needs, etc. Not if each red zone attempt we had better options or missed a receiver like all QBs do. We had a good conversion rate. This isn't like dropping a thousand darts at the same time and thinking one should land in the bulls-eye. It's making the best decision you think you can each time with different needs or situations. If you pick enough first round QBs, odds are one will stick. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying if we pick a first round pick every year, it isn't "odds are one of them is a QB." It depends on the team and the needs, not random. This is a separate post from the one above because this wasn't discussed right now. It was just something that popped in my head awhile ago when it came up from somebody. It probably would have been better articulated at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 He also had 9 TD passes to 1 int during his last play off run he threw for somethign like 29 touchdowns that year. He had a great year. Yes, he will throw the interception, but 2 superbowls is 2 superbowls especially when your favorite team hasnt even came close in 45 years. 23/32 277 3 td's 0 int 21/33 330 3 td's 1 int 32/58 316 2td's 0 int 30/40 296 1 td 0 int regular season he had 29TD to 16 int's that year he threw for 4,933 yards. So he's had a few bad years, but guess what? so have the Chiefs for 45 straight years. So, you bet ya, i would trade some interceptions for a Superbowl Win. Sad that you wouldnt. Them almost good enoughs dont cut it for me anymore. You're missing the entire point. It's not more complicated than this: Eli Manning's team was so good that a lesser quarterback than Brad Johnson had a legitimate shot at winning those games. Manning wasn't throwing interceptions in his post-season matchups because his defense kept the pressure off of him. His defense shut out the Matt Ryan Falcons, limited the 15-1 Packers to 20 points, held the two-seed 49ers' offense to 17 (while the special teams earned two extra possessions by taking Kyle Williams' lunch money), and then limited Tom Brady's offense to 17 points. You're seeing one Eli Manning that is either lucky or unlucky. I'm seeing two Eli Manning's: The one that shows up when his team shows up, and the one that doesn't show up when his team doesn't show up. No one has had an gentler road to the Lombardi Trophy than Manning Light. He's got more Super Bowl Rings, but you know darn well he's not as good as his brother, who has only one ring. Why? Because sometimes Peyton Manning's defense hasn't shown up in post-season games. If Manning Light's defense hadn't shown up against the Patriots, his prayer ball to Tyree would instead have been a symbol of desperate futility. By the way, both Peyton Manning and Eli Manning suffered a post-season shutout within their first three post-season appearances. Smith's post-season offenses have put up an average of 32.3 points per game, and while that might only be 'fair' in your book, in the last two years, neither Super Bowl-winning team's offense put up more points in any one post-season game; Smith's average was better than Flacco's or Wilson's peak. So let's be real here: Defense wins championships, and Manning Light had the benefit of one of the best post-season defenses ever in 2011. Smith's post-season appearances involved 32 points allowed by his defense, 2 special teams fumbles lost, and 45 points allowed by his defense. Smith's team has never been behind by more than 3 points at any time during his career as a post-season starting quarterback, and Smith's team has always been first to the scoreboard. So enough of the Smith hate already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Russell doesn't deserve mention in this list: The 'stretched' plays are often broken plays. Roethlisberger and The Lesser Manning have been hit-or-miss, and Roethlisberger didn't win the Super Bowl in which his defense wasn't elite. Cam? Really? The Panthers win games because of Cam Newton? Newsflash: No, they don't. The worst of all of these was Eli Manning: 11 seasons, and only five post-seasons in which he was 0-3 in games where the opponent scored more than 20 points. Can you check your own posts for accuracy so I don't have to? Ben has two rings and most definately stretched the field.Eli has two rings and stretched the field. Wilson is on his way to his second and can make every throw. I left Brees of the list, Elway, aikmen, Bradshaw, so on and so forth. Figured the point was clear. I'll give you cam. 90 percent of the time the the Super Bowl champ has a qb who would be considered and down field thrower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Ben has two rings and most definately stretched the field. Eli has two rings and stretched the field. Wilson is on his way to his second and can make every throw. I left Brees of the list, Elway, aikmen, Bradshaw, so on and so forth. Figured the point was clear. I'll give you cam. 90 percent of the time the the Super Bowl champ has a qb who would be considered and down field thrower. As to the players on your original list, you're still crediting these players with being capable downfield throwers by virtue of the fact that they attempt throws downfield with frequency. Everyone knows they can throw downfield. Not every one of those throws should have been made. I still object to including Russell Wilson on such a list when he seldom throws downfield from the pocket. On a play that lasts seven-ten seconds, someone will be very open, and the margin for error very large. And then you throw in some players that rank among the best ever to play quarterback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 As to the players on your original list, you're still crediting these players with being capable downfield throwers by virtue of the fact that they attempt throws downfield with frequency. Everyone knows they can throw downfield. Not every one of those throws should have been made. I still object to including Russell Wilson on such a list when he seldom throws downfield from the pocket. On a play that lasts seven-ten seconds, someone will be very open, and the margin for error very large. And then you throw in some players that rank among the best ever to play quarterback. The teams that win the big game, stretch the field. There's no denying that. That was my point. I should have clarified better. They are not one dimensional. Of course there are a few outliers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcxiv 35 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 lol It boggles my mind how people still believe this guy can be the one. http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/dont-kill-the-mellinger/article5540688.html great article in the Star today about Alex Smith completely missing wide open recievers during crucial drives in the game. there are 13 plays mind you these are only the crucial plays. This is what im freaking talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 lol It boggles my mind how people still believe this guy can be the one. http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/dont-kill-the-mellinger/article5540688.html great article in the Star today about Alex Smith completely missing wide open recievers during crucial drives in the game. there are 13 plays mind you these are only the crucial plays. This is what im freaking talking about. Obviously, some of those I can't excuse, but hear me out: to those who defend him, they aren't calling him great/elite and thus should not get criticized as if they feel he misses the same number of plays that a great/elite QB misses. They don't. They feel he is good at some things and not at others. They feel that we are building a team and that what Smith brings to the table is good for this team. They presumably are looking for the next guy but do think Smith can do it or the other guy needs time. Second, all QBs miss these plays sometimes. Some more and some fewer than Smith. This is not unique to Smith. We don't see how many there are for other quarterbacks. We see games here and there or highlights. And even then, we're not looking at the all 22. There are some things Smith does that other QBs don't do, like how Kaepernick misses first downs when he won't unload the ball. If Smith is good enough to hold fort or good enough to win a Super Bowl, we just have to see how other quarterbacks have won. I hate this example but Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer won and we are building a better team around Smith than these two years and we will probably draft a quarterback sometime. I don't think everybody who is not being supercritical of Smith is against us getting someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcxiv 35 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Obviously, some of those I can't excuse, but hear me out: to those who defend him, they aren't calling him great/elite and thus should not get criticized as if they feel he misses the same number of plays that a great/elite QB misses. They don't. They feel he is good at some things and not at others. They feel that we are building a team and that what Smith brings to the table is good for this team. They presumably are looking for the next guy but do think Smith can do it or the other guy needs time. Second, all QBs miss these plays sometimes. Some more and some fewer than Smith. This is not unique to Smith. We don't see how many there are for other quarterbacks. We see games here and there or highlights. And even then, we're not looking at the all 22. There are some things Smith does that other QBs don't do, like how Kaepernick misses first downs when he won't unload the ball. If Smith is good enough to hold fort or good enough to win a Super Bowl, we just have to see how other quarterbacks have won. I hate this example but Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer won and we are building a better team around Smith than these two years and we will probably draft a quarterback sometime. I don't think everybody who is not being supercritical of Smith is against us getting someone else. Smith is an average QB. that means, he's going to do some good with some bad. I agree. He's not the worst QB in the world. He's an average QB who plays to not turn the ball over. He wont lose you a game usually but he also wont win you a game usually. Its not the QB he is. I understand that. Do i think he's the QB thats going to take the Chiefs to the promise land? nope and thats where my issue is. I dont think he's good enough, and if to me, he's not good enough, what is the damned point? 2-14 or 9-7 and missing the play offs mean the same thing to me. You were not good enough. Well, ok im lying the 2-14 team get a high draft pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kccrow 529 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Why would "angles" be a factor in the short-range passing game, but less so in the long-range passing game? Wouldn't the advantage of "angles" be dependent on a defender's vector to intercept the ball carrier as determined by the ball carrier's speed and his distance from both the sideline and the goal line? I think there's an assumption here that shouldn't be made that horizontal passing schemes are at a disadvantage if the passes are primarily thrown underneath the safeties. Blocking after the catch is a big factor in springing big plays out of the West Coast Offense. Otherwise, you've acknowledged most of what I've stated concerning the West Coast Offense in the past: You need an intelligent quarterback capable of throwing the ball at an appropriate velocity to the right spot (which the Chiefs have), and you need capable receivers that can execute their assignments correctly (something certain "starting" receivers like Frankie Hammond struggled with). I don't agree with your argument that stretching defenses vertically is a necessity for the proper execution of the running game within the West Coast Offense. Most run plays develop so quickly that a safety's ability to react to the play is going to be highly dependent on where he lines up. If you want to take the safety out of the box, you need an effective passing game, and that has little to do with horizontal vs. vertical passing schemes and everything to do with what an offense can do with the pieces it has when the defense is bringing eight-man fronts. Perhaps you meant something else by "angles". I had very little to go on in your response. According to the stat listed above that started this discussion, Smith attempted 1.2 such passes a game on average, which falls inside your range. Those pass attempts were largely unsuccessful because Smith often didn't get enough time in the pocket to throw from his spot. Defenses will generally oblige an offense shooting itself in the foot by wasting plays on deep incompletions in a vain effort to 'keep the defense honest'. It's a play unlikely to succeed in the case of the Chiefs because they don't have the prerequisite offensive line and receiving corps to effectively throw vertically. I just keep seeing the same circular argument: 'Jamaal Charles is the best player on the offense' > 'Jamaal Charles can't do everything by himself' > 'Smith needs to throw the ball more' > 'Smith needs more time in the pocket' > 'The Chiefs aren't winning by throwing the ball and need to run the ball more as they typically have in winning efforts' > [repeat from beginning]. Smith doesn't have the appropriate supporting cast to execute a vertical or a horizontal passing attack, but the given the limitations of that cast the lesser of two evils is to attempt the horizontal passing attack. When the offensive line did its job and the receivers did their job, defenses had to pick their poison and eventually either Charles or Smith got them, despite whatever limitations you perceive to exist in the West Coast Offense. When one or the other of the line and receivers faltered, there was no margin for error left, and it was largely up to the defense to atone for the sins of the offensive line and receivers. I was being an ass and have therefore edited my response. I'm talking about how more horizontal routes cut down the throwing angle between the QB and the receiver. It also brings the defense closer to the LOS. When the defense tightens up, those angles often decrease even further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefsfan1963 1,101 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Don't see that happening. Thank God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Josh Gordon is about to be punished. He cannot get his life together. Its very sad. Due to being suspended, he will be a RFA until the 2017 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Josh Gordon is about to be punished. He cannot get his life together. Its very sad. Due to being suspended, he will be a RFA until the 2017 season. The more real likelihood is that he gets released by the Browns, and doesn't get picked up at all during 2015. His career in the NFL might have died this weekend. He's undisciplined and untrustworthy, and there comes a point where even the least risk-averse General Manager is going to say, "Not on my dime." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kccrow 529 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I'd probably drink quite a bit if I had to deal with that mess in Cleveland that Gordon has... That said, Gordon is toast for a year. Hopefully, he takes that time to get his shit together because he is a hell of a talented player that could still have a long NFL career if he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhitter 1,424 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Gordon had everything to gain and nothing to lose by staying clean. Yet he couldn't. Guy obviously needs help. I hope he gets it before it claims more than a chunk of his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KC Warpaint 3,234 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 it's a shame that his agent and/or family did not seek to get him professional help, or maybe they did and he is just too stupid and stubborn to listen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handswarmer 645 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 He probably thought "Man, I can't smoke the weed but I can still sneak in a drunk or two" You "Dumbass of the Year" already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handswarmer 645 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Dumbass of the Year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcchief4lif 910 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Without doubt!! And it wasn't like the league didn't bend over backwards for this kid. Man what a total waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.