O-line 2015

[Mugsy 225]

I am probably in the minority but, I think the line has been good enough over the past two years. We won 20 games. On paper, it looks like it got better this off season. Maybe I'm missing something but, I don't get the "hubbub?" 

[eraser 722]

Forgiveness is for your benefit, not theirs.  Holding a grudge just messes with your psyche.  The person you have the grudge against seldom cares whether you forgive them or not. 

It is always best to clear the slate, and not have all that garbage cluttering up your mind. 

[KCSLC2008 606]

Forgiveness is for your benefit, not theirs.  Holding a grudge just messes with your psyche.  The person you have the grudge against seldom cares whether you forgive them or not. 

 

I understand and I wouldn't be not forgiving them to punish them. I'm just saying I probably wouldn't unless they admitted it and felt remorse; still, I don't think I would be able to move past losing a child. I'd move on in some manner, but I don't think completely. I mean, even if I forgave them officially, I don't think I really could, nor totally move on. If it's an accident, I could try to lessen the blame in my head and tell them I forgave them, but man... (I know that I wouldn't be able to categorize a DUI as an accident, though it is; it'd be too personal and enough of a decision to start drinking with no designated driver that I couldn't call it one, though I "understand" others treating it as an accident.)... Now, here's to never having to do so. Knock on wood,

 

Just trying to be honest on how I would respond; not trying to pass judgment on others because I have not been in that situation from any angle. Closest is a sister of my brother's high school friend.

[PhataLerror 370]

I am probably in the minority but, I think the line has been good enough over the past two years. We won 20 games. On paper, it looks like it got better this off season. Maybe I'm missing something but, I don't get the "hubbub?" 

The line was barely passable in 2013, and it was awful in 2014. If it weren't for the combination of scheme and quarterback, the line that got modest rankings in pass protection would have gotten the rating it truly deserved. How bad can an offensive line be and still be "good enough"?

 

I'm curious: In your eyes, what other offensive line squads would you have traded the Chiefs' for? For me to attack that question, I would have to watch game film of poorly-rated offensive lines to see if they were actually as bad as they were rated, or if poor quarterback play skewed the ratings. As a matter of choosing the method that would save the most time, I would absolutely work my way up from the league's worst-ranked offensive line rather than work my way down from the league's top-ranked offensive line. The Chiefs' line looked persistently over-matched at almost every turn.

[kychief 239]

I am probably in the minority but, I think the line has been good enough over the past two years. We won 20 games. On paper, it looks like it got better this off season. Maybe I'm missing something but, I don't get the "hubbub?"

Mugs I really hope you are right..

 

outside of the ever worrisome injury the O-line will determine this teams fate..imo of course.

[eraser 722]

Is the Chiefs' OL underrated? Not according to PFF (Pro Football Focus), where they rated near last in the league. Other than Rodney Hudson, every player on the line rated a negative number. Perhaps Eric Fisher was still battling an injured shoulder. The Chiefs suffered the loss of Jeff Allen at LG. Will the Chiefs OL be better than last year? I don't know if we have an answer for that yet. 

 

Rodney Hudson was a huge loss. The Chiefs tried to pull out all stops to retain Hudson. That effort to retain Hudson indicates what Dorsey, and Reid thought of him. In the end, the bidding war against Oakland (who had money to burn) was lost. The Chiefs hope Grubbs' subpar season at New Orleans was an anomaly, rather than the start of a decline. If so, that gain offsets the loss of Hudson. Will Eric Fisher be better this time? I sure hope so, but that is not a given. Morse is a rookie, and it is hard to say how he fits in just yet. I suppose he will eventually be a good addition, but you never know at this stage. Fanaika will push Fulton at RG, but neither are above average players. Stephenson and Allen will battle it out for RT. Will this be an improvement of Ryan Harris? Harris was not re-signed, and is still without a team. 

 

The Chiefs had trouble on their offensive line last season. Alex Smith was sacked too many times. He ran for his life at points in games. This does not evoke a great deal of confidence. In the final game, Smith was injured badly, and would not have been able to play had they made a playoff run. The Chiefs have simply got to do better, but will they? 

 

We'll find out. 

[PhataLerror 370]

To me, 'letting go of something' is not the same as forgiveness. "Forgiveness" means that you don't charge an error to someone, that you no longer demand an accounting for the wrong done. 'Letting go of something' carries the idea of not worrying about it, but doesn't necessarily involve forgiving the wrong done.

 

As a business owner, I occasionally have customers who owe me money, and for one reason or another, they do not pay me. There are a number of methods for dealing with that problem, and sometimes patience alone allows for a successful resolution. One customer gradually paid down a nearly-one thousand dollar debt until her account was clear. As to the debt, there was nothing to forgive: It was paid. As to the tardiness, I had the right to charge a late fee, but I forgave that amount. As to the amount that went months without a single payment toward it, I on the one hand continued to stuff her invoice with the outstanding amount in an envelope every month, but I had 'let go of it', meaning that I never really expected to see the money, and preferred taking the loss to fighting out the matter in Small Claims Court.

 

Another customer owed a similar amount, and played the Deadbeat card. They eventually lost their house to foreclosure. That being said, there was no satisfying excuse as to why I wasn't paid what I should have been paid, long before the house entered into foreclosure: The customer was gainfully employed (unless they were lying about their manner of employment, which in hindsight wouldn't surprise me), and enjoyed a manner of living far above what I enjoy (as do pretty much all of my customers, if in this case wealth is the sole determining factor in "manner of living"). I wouldn't be surprised to find that I wasn't the only victim of their deliberately contracting for work without the intention to pay for it. In any case, I've 'let it go', as I drive by the property I serviced every week without even giving it a thought anymore. The unpaid amounts have been off my books for years. If I ever see the man again, I will tell him that he still owes me money.

 

Forgiveness is the appropriate thing to extend when the perpetrator of an injustice regrets their action and does what they can to make reparation. A person can pay a speeding ticket but continue to deliberately drive at unsafe speeds, proving that they are not sorry. However, by virtue of paying the ticket, they are acquitted. A person who has been paroled after thirty years in jail for committing first-degree murder has been acquitted, but although the state may no longer charge the sin against the perpetrator, the family of the victim may be less (or in some cases, more) willing to forgive, on the basis that they see or sense evidence of sincere repentance.

 

Many people get their sense of what to forgive and what not to on the basis of family upbringing or religion. Many who have made public expressions of their forgiveness of one who committed a heinous crime have cited God's forgiving nature as their basis for extending forgiveness. Certainly a wise, loving God would not forgive a person despite their cold-blooded crimes when such a person doesn't demonstrate sincere regret. Such a person continues to be a threat to the well-being of yet others, and so therefore God's mercy would in effect be inferior to that of humans. A wise, loving God would punish unrepentant wrongdoers out of love for decent people that contribute to a stable, healthy society. I get very upset when someone tries to 'glorify God' by such public expressions of forgiveness when the denial of the commission of a crime, by virtue of a Not Guilty plea, indicates a lack of self-accountability. It paints God as being so sentimental that he would disregard the sadness and frustration of billions of others on account of the feelings and well-being of one or a few persons. If it is as the court found in the case of Aaron Hernandez, that he did commit murder, he cannot rightly be forgiven until he acknowledges his crime, and subsequently follows that up with actions demonstrating sincere remorse.

 

So to summarize, I 'let things go' because wasting my mental or emotional energy on a real or perceived injustice that is unsatisfactorily resolved does damage to me in addition to the damage already done. On the other hand, I am under no pressure or requirement to forgive willful, deliberate acts against myself or others when the perpetrator continues without any regret of their action. Not even God would do that.

 

Interestingly, forgiving oneself, and 'letting go of' one's own past mistakes can in some cases be more challenging than those cases involving another person.

[Mr Ev 332]

To me, 'letting go of something' is not the same as forgiveness. "Forgiveness" means that you don't charge an error to someone, that you no longer demand an accounting for the wrong done. 'Letting go of something' carries the idea of not worrying about it, but doesn't necessarily involve forgiving the wrong done.

 

As a business owner, I occasionally have customers who owe me money, and for one reason or another, they do not pay me. There are a number of methods for dealing with that problem, and sometimes patience alone allows for a successful resolution. One customer gradually paid down a nearly-one thousand dollar debt until her account was clear. As to the debt, there was nothing to forgive: It was paid. As to the tardiness, I had the right to charge a late fee, but I forgave that amount. As to the amount that went months without a single payment toward it, I on the one hand continued to stuff her invoice with the outstanding amount in an envelope every month, but I had 'let go of it', meaning that I never really expected to see the money, and preferred taking the loss to fighting out the matter in Small Claims Court.

 

Another customer owed a similar amount, and played the Deadbeat card. They eventually lost their house to foreclosure. That being said, there was no satisfying excuse as to why I wasn't paid what I should have been paid, long before the house entered into foreclosure: The customer was gainfully employed (unless they were lying about their manner of employment, which in hindsight wouldn't surprise me), and enjoyed a manner of living far above what I enjoy (as do pretty much all of my customers, if in this case wealth is the sole determining factor in "manner of living"). I wouldn't be surprised to find that I wasn't the only victim of their deliberately contracting for work without the intention to pay for it. In any case, I've 'let it go', as I drive by the property I serviced every week without even giving it a thought anymore. The unpaid amounts have been off my books for years. If I ever see the man again, I will tell him that he still owes me money.

 

Forgiveness is the appropriate thing to extend when the perpetrator of an injustice regrets their action and does what they can to make reparation. A person can pay a speeding ticket but continue to deliberately drive at unsafe speeds, proving that they are not sorry. However, by virtue of paying the ticket, they are acquitted. A person who has been paroled after thirty years in jail for committing first-degree murder has been acquitted, but although the state may no longer charge the sin against the perpetrator, the family of the victim may be less (or in some cases, more) willing to forgive, on the basis that they see or sense evidence of sincere repentance.

 

Many people get their sense of what to forgive and what not to on the basis of family upbringing or religion. Many who have made public expressions of their forgiveness of one who committed a heinous crime have cited God's forgiving nature as their basis for extending forgiveness. Certainly a wise, loving God would not forgive a person despite their cold-blooded crimes when such a person doesn't demonstrate sincere regret. Such a person continues to be a threat to the well-being of yet others, and so therefore God's mercy would in effect be inferior to that of humans. A wise, loving God would punish unrepentant wrongdoers out of love for decent people that contribute to a stable, healthy society. I get very upset when someone tries to 'glorify God' by such public expressions of forgiveness when the denial of the commission of a crime, by virtue of a Not Guilty plea, indicates a lack of self-accountability. It paints God as being so sentimental that he would disregard the sadness and frustration of billions of others on account of the feelings and well-being of one or a few persons. If it is as the court found in the case of Aaron Hernandez, that he did commit murder, he cannot rightly be forgiven until he acknowledges his crime, and subsequently follows that up with actions demonstrating sincere remorse.

 

So to summarize, I 'let things go' because wasting my mental or emotional energy on a real or perceived injustice that is unsatisfactorily resolved does damage to me in addition to the damage already done. On the other hand, I am under no pressure or requirement to forgive willful, deliberate acts against myself or others when the perpetrator continues without any regret of their action. Not even God would do that.

 

Interestingly, forgiving oneself, and 'letting go of' one's own past mistakes can in some cases be more challenging than those cases involving another person.

So fluffy and full of happiness....

 

I don't forgive, I have many chips on my shoulders. If you lose my trust, you're dead to me, too many fake people.

[PhataLerror 370]

So fluffy and full of happiness....

 

I don't forgive, I have many chips on my shoulders. If you lose my trust, you're dead to me, too many fake people.

I should add: The references to my business were for illustrative purposes. I don't make decisions concerning human relationships in the same manner or according to the same criteria that I do my business relationships. There are indeed a lot of fake people, but I'm not cynical concerning the people in whom I've already extended the trust associated with friendship. I don't ask for an accounting over the little things. I actually would consider myself a very forgiving person, and I consider myself somewhat fortunate so as not to have been put in a position where I've had to decide to forgive or not over ugly stuff. When I speak of extending or not extending forgiveness, I'm talking about very serious matters: Extortion, assault of any kind, etc.

[KCSLC2008 606]

I forgive Kyle Williams but have not let it go and probably won't until Smith wins one, which may never happen. Of course, the effect on my life of not letting that go is much different than not letting go murder or failure to pay a debt you have money to pay.

[PhataLerror 370]

I forgive Kyle Williams but have not let it go and probably won't until Smith wins one, which may never happen. Of course, the effect on my life of not letting that go is much different than not letting go murder or failure to pay a debt you have money to pay.

I really wanted to see Kyle Williams have a successful career. Back-to-back ligament tears destroyed what could have been a happy redemption story. (The Chiefs definitely could have used a healthy Williams in 2013 and 2014, and it would have been awesome to see Williams succeed with Smith after Kaepernick couldn't make heads or tails out of what to do with him.)

[Mugsy 225]

The line was barely passable in 2013, and it was awful in 2014. If it weren't for the combination of scheme and quarterback, the line that got modest rankings in pass protection would have gotten the rating it truly deserved. How bad can an offensive line be and still be "good enough"?

 

I'm curious: In your eyes, what other offensive line squads would you have traded the Chiefs' for? For me to attack that question, I would have to watch game film of poorly-rated offensive lines to see if they were actually as bad as they were rated, or if poor quarterback play skewed the ratings. As a matter of choosing the method that would save the most time, I would absolutely work my way up from the league's worst-ranked offensive line rather than work my way down from the league's top-ranked offensive line. The Chiefs' line looked persistently over-matched at almost every turn.

 

 

I think you are over analyzing this. It was far from awful. I have seen far worse o-line play in the last decade. How quickly we forget...

 

I did analysis like that for about 10 years. I broke down tape, followed league trends, and researched stats. It's not worth it for the most part dude. Every once in a while I get a wild hair up my ass and will make a case but, in my experience the only thing that matters is wins. 

 

Here's what I see when I think of our o-line...

 

1. They are as good if not better than the o-lines Green Bay has had of late and they have a pocket QB. This includes the line that won a Super Bowl. Dorsey learned in Green Bay from Ted Thompson who is one of the best GMs of all time. Ted never invested much in the o-line. The goal is to create a continuous cycle of solid o-linemen that stick around until their contracts expire. 

 

2. We have a mobile QB. We don't need an A+ offensive line.

 

3. Our offense is based around a RB. We don't need an A+ pass blocking offensive line.

 

4. Our offense is a west coast offense. It revolves around screen passes to the RBs and short/quick timing routes. There are always multiple check downs. We don't need to pass block for long.

 

5. We have a QB that doesn't like to throw it down the field and we don't do it much anyway. They knew this when they signed him. The plan was never to throw the ball down the field with some big armed QB. We signed and drafted smart QBs with average arms. Again, we don't need to pass block for long. We have no reason to. 

 

6. We upgraded the o-line this off season. 

 

Just my ten cents...

[kychief 239]

I think you are over analyzing this. It was far from awful. I have seen far worse o-line play in the last decade. How quickly we forget...

 

I did analysis like that for about 10 years. I broke down tape, followed league trends, and researched stats. It's not worth it for the most part dude. Every once in a while I get a wild hair up my ass and will make a case but, in my experience the only thing that matters is wins. 

 

Here's what I see when I think of our o-line...

 

1. They are as good if not better than the o-lines Green Bay has had of late and they have a pocket QB. This includes the line that won a Super Bowl. Dorsey learned in Green Bay from Ted Thompson who is one of the best GMs of all time. Ted never invested much in the o-line. The goal is to create a continuous cycle of solid o-linemen that stick around until their contracts expire. 

 

2. We have a mobile QB. We don't need an A+ offensive line.

 

3. Our offense is based around a RB. We don't need an A+ pass blocking offensive line.

 

4. Our offense is a west coast offense. It revolves around screen passes to the RBs and short/quick timing routes. There are always multiple check downs. We don't need to pass block for long.

 

5. We have a QB that doesn't like to throw it down the field and we don't do it much anyway. They knew this when they signed him. The plan was never to throw the ball down the field with some big armed QB. We signed and drafted smart QBs with average arms. Again, we don't need to pass block for long. We have no reason to. 

 

6. We upgraded the o-line this off season. 

 

Just my ten cents...

Mugs..all points true..

 

yet the line HAS to be better than shit...

 

It seemed nearly all pass plays unless a quick screen or dump off were destroyed by pressure usually from the left side..I think this is where Grubbs will make a huge difference..

 

Go Chiefs!!

[PhataLerror 370]

2. We have a mobile QB. We don't need an A+ offensive line.

 

3. Our offense is based around a RB. We don't need an A+ pass blocking offensive line.

 

4. Our offense is a west coast offense. It revolves around screen passes to the RBs and short/quick timing routes. There are always multiple check downs. We don't need to pass block for long.

I would argue with nearly everything you brought up about the Chiefs' line, but I'll focus on these three together because they are the weakest, even most self-defeating elements of your argument.

 

2: Don't confuse "mobile quarterback" as the opposite of "pocket quarterback" as you did. Smith is a pocket quarterback, and he makes his best throws from the pocket. He just happens to be mobile. For comparison, Kaepernick is not a pocket quarterback, but his mobility does allow him to start a play, find a hole in the pocket, and extend a play for the seven seconds he needs to make three poor-quality reads before hoping someone pops open on a broken play.

 

3 & 4: Since when is a West Coast Offense a 'run-based offense'? The West Coast Offense sets up the run and the deep pass. You've got the concepts of the offense totally backward, and that is likely because you truly believe that Jamaal Charles is the most important player on the Chiefs' offense. He cannot be. The Chiefs weren't putting up 44 points in the playoffs with Jamaal Charles carrying the ball. Here's a good place to start for researching the concepts of the West Coast Offense.

 

What do you consider 'pass blocking for long'? Smith was getting frequent A-gap and B-gap pressures throughout the season, sometimes within a second of the snap. That's not even enough time to make the read for a screen pass without risking a pick-six, a ball Smith hasn't thrown in years (although he has admittedly come close a few times, and again because the pass blocking was so awful).

 

Your opinion that the offensive line isn't important to a West Coast Offense flies in the face of what Bill Walsh did with the 49ers in the 1980's. What later General Managers have done and their approach to building a team (including the offensive line) can have a lot to do with draft position and salary cap room. There's no question that Aaron Rodgers' effectiveness and health have been impacted by the struggles of his offensive line.

 

My overall opinion of your post was that you made use of technical terms in a context derived from stereotypes about Smith rather than the reality of Smith's situation. There's not a General Manager in all of professional football that would agree with your assessment that you can build an offense where the ability to pass protect is not at least very important.

 

One more thing: Not every short pass is a "check-down". The purpose of the West Coast Offense is to get receivers open in space. There's no difference between throwing the deep ball over the top and throwing the short out that turns into a catch and run for a touchdown. But in case you didn't know, Smith can actually throw both of those balls. Smith just never throws that ball over the top if the receiver is not there, and quite frankly, the receivers weren't getting there last year.

[KCSLC2008 606]

I would argue with nearly everything you brought up about the Chiefs' line, but I'll focus on these three together because they are the weakest, even most self-defeating elements of your argument.

 

2: Don't confuse "mobile quarterback" as the opposite of "pocket quarterback" as you did. Smith is a pocket quarterback, and he makes his best throws from the pocket. He just happens to be mobile. For comparison, Kaepernick is not a pocket quarterback, but his mobility does allow him to start a play, find a hole in the pocket, and extend a play for the seven seconds he needs to make three poor-quality reads before hoping someone pops open on a broken play.

 

3 & 4: Since when is a West Coast Offense a 'run-based offense'? The West Coast Offense sets up the run and the deep pass. You've got the concepts of the offense totally backward, and that is likely because you truly believe that Jamaal Charles is the most important player on the Chiefs' offense. He cannot be. The Chiefs weren't putting up 44 points in the playoffs with Jamaal Charles carrying the ball. Here's a good place to start for researching the concepts of the West Coast Offense.

 

What do you consider 'pass blocking for long'? Smith was getting frequent A-gap and B-gap pressures throughout the season, sometimes within a second of the snap. That's not even enough time to make the read for a screen pass without risking a pick-six, a ball Smith hasn't thrown in years (although he has admittedly come close a few times, and again because the pass blocking was so awful).

 

Your opinion that the offensive line isn't important to a West Coast Offense flies in the face of what Bill Walsh did with the 49ers in the 1980's. What later General Managers have done and their approach to building a team (including the offensive line) can have a lot to do with draft position and salary cap room. There's no question that Aaron Rodgers' effectiveness and health have been impacted by the struggles of his offensive line.

 

My overall opinion of your post was that you made use of technical terms in a context derived from stereotypes about Smith rather than the reality of Smith's situation. There's not a General Manager in all of professional football that would agree with your assessment that you can build an offense where the ability to pass protect is not at least very important.

 

One more thing: Not every short pass is a "check-down". The purpose of the West Coast Offense is to get receivers open in space. There's no difference between throwing the deep ball over the top and throwing the short out that turns into a catch and run for a touchdown. But in case you didn't know, Smith can actually throw both of those balls. Smith just never throws that ball over the top if the receiver is not there, and quite frankly, the receivers weren't getting there last year.

Your last paragraph reminded me of some of these charts regarding frequency and efficiency of Smith's deep ball.

 

http://rotoviz.com/2015/05/alex-smith-fantasy/?hvid=4rpGO

[Mugsy 225]

I would argue with nearly everything you brought up about the Chiefs' line, but I'll focus on these three together because they are the weakest, even most self-defeating elements of your argument.

 

2: Don't confuse "mobile quarterback" as the opposite of "pocket quarterback" as you did. Smith is a pocket quarterback, and he makes his best throws from the pocket. He just happens to be mobile. For comparison, Kaepernick is not a pocket quarterback, but his mobility does allow him to start a play, find a hole in the pocket, and extend a play for the seven seconds he needs to make three poor-quality reads before hoping someone pops open on a broken play.

 

3 & 4: Since when is a West Coast Offense a 'run-based offense'? The West Coast Offense sets up the run and the deep pass. You've got the concepts of the offense totally backward, and that is likely because you truly believe that Jamaal Charles is the most important player on the Chiefs' offense. He cannot be. The Chiefs weren't putting up 44 points in the playoffs with Jamaal Charles carrying the ball. Here's a good place to start for researching the concepts of the West Coast Offense.

 

What do you consider 'pass blocking for long'? Smith was getting frequent A-gap and B-gap pressures throughout the season, sometimes within a second of the snap. That's not even enough time to make the read for a screen pass without risking a pick-six, a ball Smith hasn't thrown in years (although he has admittedly come close a few times, and again because the pass blocking was so awful).

 

Your opinion that the offensive line isn't important to a West Coast Offense flies in the face of what Bill Walsh did with the 49ers in the 1980's. What later General Managers have done and their approach to building a team (including the offensive line) can have a lot to do with draft position and salary cap room. There's no question that Aaron Rodgers' effectiveness and health have been impacted by the struggles of his offensive line.

 

My overall opinion of your post was that you made use of technical terms in a context derived from stereotypes about Smith rather than the reality of Smith's situation. There's not a General Manager in all of professional football that would agree with your assessment that you can build an offense where the ability to pass protect is not at least very important.

 

One more thing: Not every short pass is a "check-down". The purpose of the West Coast Offense is to get receivers open in space. There's no difference between throwing the deep ball over the top and throwing the short out that turns into a catch and run for a touchdown. But in case you didn't know, Smith can actually throw both of those balls. Smith just never throws that ball over the top if the receiver is not there, and quite frankly, the receivers weren't getting there last year.

 

2. Point taken - he's an evasive QB that doesn't need a great line imo. Not a mobile QB.

 

3 & 4. We aren't a run based offense. I never said we were. I said the focal point of our offense is a running back. Andy uses Charles like he used Westbrook in that west coast offense in Philly. I understand the west coast offense. You just didn't read what I wrote and jumped to conclusions. 

 

Even if we were a down field passing offense finding pass blocking specialists still wouldn't be a priority to Dorsey. It wasn't a priority in Green Bay where they run that type of offense.

 

I never said the line wasn't important in a west coast offense and I know the difference between a short pass and a check down. Please stop putting words in my mouth.  

 

You are over analyzing this. It's pretty clear what they are trying to do and it is working for the most part. Hell, the fact that they upgraded should make it work better right?

[Calichief 3,016]

The OLINE was dogshit. A steaming pile of dogshit.

[PhataLerror 370]

2. Point taken - he's an evasive QB that doesn't need a great line imo. Not a mobile QB.

 

3 & 4. We aren't a run based offense. I never said we were. I said the focal point of our offense is a running back. Andy uses Charles like he used Westbrook in that west coast offense in Philly. I understand the west coast offense. You just didn't read what I wrote and jumped to conclusions. 

 

Even if we were a down field passing offense finding pass blocking specialists still wouldn't be a priority to Dorsey. It wasn't a priority in Green Bay where they run that type of offense.

 

I never said the line wasn't important in a west coast offense and I know the difference between a short pass and a check down. Please stop putting words in my mouth.  

 

You are over analyzing this. It's pretty clear what they are trying to do and it is working for the most part. Hell, the fact that they upgraded should make it work better right?

I thought that when you said, "Our offense is based around a RB," I could reasonably conclude that you meant that the Chiefs' offense was run based. Jamaal Charles isn't dropping back and throwing passes.

 

I thought that when you said, "We don't need to pass block for long," I could reasonably conclude that you meant that the Chiefs' offense would run within acceptable parameters if performing at a 'C grade' level.

 

These are your words, and I hope you can understand why I honestly don't feel I was putting words in your mouth. Thanks for the clarifications as to what you meant. I grew up watching the West Coast Offense in its glory days as executed by one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game, and to see someone thirty years later try to suggest that quality offensive line play is anything other than a fundamental requirement for running that scheme makes me question whether they really understand the West Coast Offense and why it is that when it is properly executed, it is nearly unstoppable.

 

Let me not be a repeat offender as to over-analyzing and make this simple point: Alex Smith has the right mix of football mind and football arm to execute his responsibilities in connection with the West Coast Offense. Last year, he was utterly failed by his offensive line, and it wasn't a matter of scoring 59 when 60 was a passing score. Out of 100 points, that line graded somewhere between φ and π, with the latter being very generous. The West Coast Offense doesn't come close to producing its potential when the quarterback is consistently unable to execute the complete play due to poor pass protection, and a quarterback's mobility doesn't accomplish nearly enough to make up for it.

 

The offensive line is everything in the West Coast Offense. Yes, the quarterback is very important, but if you don't have the line, nothing else really matters: The plays don't develop, and although the intent was to execute the West Coast Offense, what actually shows up on the field is more akin to street ball. An occasional screen pass or quick completion over the middle on a slant pattern does not turn Street Ball into West Coast Offense.