Calichief 3,016 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Your recollection of history isn't that good Stubby. Marty had some years where the offense was actually pretty good. A little one dimensional to be sure but I think he had 4 years out of 10 where the offense was top ten. I loved Marty but he gets no pass under the guise that his "offense was bad". Marty made mistakes...none worse than the Grbac over Gannon debacle. The Chiefs should have won a SB under Marty but his mistakes and just bad luck derailed him.They weren't good when it mattered. One dimensional in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Paying Houston isn't the reason the line is the way it is right now, even if they hadn't their was no guarantee they would have used that money on the line. Clearly re-signing Houston was their focus, and it impacted all of their other Free Agency decisions. Would they have won over any free agent offensive linemen that might have made more of a difference? Not without overpaying them. That's the nature of free agency. In any case, my argument had always been that Quality Player + Quality Player + Quality Player > Justin Houston + Budget Player + Budget Player. The Chiefs cut corners on the offensive line budget to be able to afford Houston, they whiffed on the Fanaika signing, the injuries came, Grubbs hasn't fit in as well as was hoped, and now it is as nfl.com's Jeffri Chadiha put it: "[The Chiefs' offensive line] is making a strong case for being the worst in the NFL." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhitter 1,424 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 They weren't good when it mattered. One dimensional in the playoffs. Okay?? I was addressing a specific statement, "The Chiefs had a great defense under Marty, but their offenses were bad, really bad." I took that to mean the offense in general over Marty's tenure as a head coach in KC. How would you have taken it? I responded with the fact that, while Marty's offenses may be one dimensional, there were several years where they were in the top ten. Conclusion...not every year that Marty had a good defense he also was saddled with a very bad offense. That simply is not true. So your response to my post was what exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Okay?? I was addressing a specific statement, "The Chiefs had a great defense under Marty, but their offenses were bad, really bad." I took that to mean the offense in general over Marty's tenure as a head coach in KC. How would you have taken it? I responded with the fact that, while Marty's offenses may be one dimensional, there were several years where they were in the top ten. Conclusion...not every year that Marty had a good defense he also was saddled with a very bad offense. That simply is not true. So your response to my post was what exactly? It wasnt a slight or really directed towards you. I was just reflecting. Sadly, it has always been one thing or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroncoStud 3,253 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Marty had some decent even good offenses, but like Cali said, 1-dimensional as hell, and ultra-conservative when it came playoff time. It was really odd to watch a team with THAT defense continue to lose when it mattered most year after year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kychief 239 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 shut up stubby.. btw... good to see ya back.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidfriend 1,151 Posted October 15, 2015 Author Share Posted October 15, 2015 This was the reason I said that paying Justin Houston was a mistake. It was popular with fans, but upon the first injury to the offensive line in Training Camp, the lack of quality depth in that position group ruined any chance of making the Chiefs' offense function as it should. And for what? 3 sacks over 5 games. Justin Houston may have his first single-digits sack year since coming into the league as a rookie. I suggested this possibility over a month ago. God you are dumb. Go back to 49erszone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Clearly re-signing Houston was their focus, and it impacted all of their other Free Agency decisions. Would they have won over any free agent offensive linemen that might have made more of a difference? Not without overpaying them. That's the nature of free agency. In any case, my argument had always been that Quality Player + Quality Player + Quality Player > Justin Houston + Budget Player + Budget Player. The Chiefs cut corners on the offensive line budget to be able to afford Houston, they whiffed on the Fanaika signing, the injuries came, Grubbs hasn't fit in as well as was hoped, and now it is as nfl.com's Jeffri Chadiha put it: "[The Chiefs' offensive line] is making a strong case for being the worst in the NFL." Justin Houston is the only player on this team consistently performing at a pro bowl level. He is probably about 3 or 4 at his position in the NFL this year, and he has not had a lot of help. Poe has been hurt. Allen Bailey has played pretty well, but not at a pro bowl level. Jaye Howard is probably the second best defensive lineman. Tamba Hali is doing ok, but aging. Dee Ford is not good enough, and may never be a complete player. Eric Berry is playing at a pro bowl level, which is amazing. Peters gets a lot of praise, but he is young, and not as good as his acclaim.. yet. The one player you sited is the leader of this team, and one of the few players still giving it their all on every single down. Here is the thing about Grubbs.. Grubbs is not a zone blocking, pass protecting guard. He is a mauler, and I have not a clue why the Chiefs thought he would be an ideal pick to play for their team. He is one of the best guys on their line, maybe the best. However, he is NOT a great pass protector, or zone blocker. Morse is doing an outstanding job for a 2nd round rookie, but he did get pounded at Cincinnati. Stephenson is a pretty average back up at LT. The unfortunate thing is he is starting. Fisher is pathetic. He may play a long time in the NFL, but he will never be worth anything close to the #1 pick the Chiefs gave up to get him. He is a below average RT currently, probably close to bottom five of starters. Here is what I am having a hard time understanding about the OL. Albert wanted too much, but he was a mid level LT. He was hardly a priority to change out. Now it turns out he has had injuries, but that is not to say he would have if he stayed. Geoff Schwartz was a washout last season for the Giants, but again, there is no way to say those injuries would have happened in KC (stubbed toe, and leg injury after his return). The point is he did not even receive an offer. Schwartz is better than anyone at RG by a large margin. Hudson was not tied up, and left for Oakland. Having Albert, Hudson, and Schwartz would have been a huge improvement over what the Chiefs have now. Maybe it was not possible to do this, but the Chiefs did not get in return anything close to the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 The one player you sited is the leader of this team, and one of the few players still giving it their all on every single down. That has nothing to do with my actual point. My actual point was that Justin Houston, while not replaceable one-for-one, consumes so much of the salary cap that the Chiefs had no money left for a number of players that could have been more helpful on both sides of the ball. Houston is the best player on a lost unit, and therefore it's wasted money. (And for all of the folks who are going to argue that Houston isn't taking up much of the cap this year, his Franchise Tag counted against the cap for almost all of the off-season, including the most critical days following the opening of free agency. The Chiefs were cap-strapped from the beginning.) Once you have a defense ranked in the thirties, you can't just skirt around the question of whether or not you overspent on defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsy 1,137 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Maybe the chiefs should restructure Mr. Alex Smith's contract. That could free up a few dollars...He's definitely not playing up to his contract! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Maybe the chiefs should restructure Mr. Alex Smith's contract. That could free up a few dollars...He's definitely not playing up to his contract! I agree that he's not playing to his 15th ranked average salary for quarterbacks (that would be 16th if Luck signed his deal). I do believe that he could get to playing 15th best, but not betting on it. Restructure in the off-season if he doesn't from this point on. It would extend the guarantee to 2017 but for less the next two seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMO 6,811 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 What cap implications would be involved with just outright releasing him in the offseason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 What cap implications would be involved with just outright releasing him in the offseason? Like 26 million or so. 17M base, I think, plus the remaining prorated bonus for the next two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xen 1,010,220 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Were these stats in the original post massaged to make the 2 show really similar? I put them both in here and came up with this. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=SmitAl03&p2=CassMa00&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6= Not really a smith fan personally but let's at least use the real numbers if we're comparing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Were these stats in the original post massaged to make the 2 show really similar? I put them both in here and came up with this. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=SmitAl03&p2=CassMa00&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6= Not really a smith fan personally but let's at least use the real numbers if we're comparing. + 1 Million. We don't need stats to see how poorly he's playing right now with this team. But, even if you were to take the last 80 games, which this suggests, Smiths best 80 were these past 80. Seeing that overall, including his rookie year, is better than Matt, it would be safe to say that the last 80 were better than what was cited there. I originally thought it was before Kansas City for Smith's, but I know that he had more interceptions than touchdowns before he came here by one or two. Or he had one or two more touchdowns than interceptions. So it couldn't be that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilkie 1,518 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Hate to say it because they were good players and popular here, but it's time to cut Hali and DJ. Successful teams don't keep aging players costing high cap numbers and stay competitive long. NE cut Welker while he was still productive and never missed a beat. Same for other players. It's time to roll over the high cost part of the roster.Sad but true. Not the same since achilles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West 6,713 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Thanks Xen.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMO 6,811 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Still pretty similiar, considering Smith has a thousand more attempts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Still pretty similiar, considering Smith has a thousand more attempts. That's fair, but because I like math: If Cassel passed as much as Smith has, in 3322 throws, he'd have 135 TDs vs. Smith's 127, but 111 INTs vs. Smith's 75. Smith has completed about the same in completions per throw for the career (Smith has 51 more completions than Cassel would in 3322 throws). More yards per 3322 throws, too. Rushing wise, in 115 games it would be 1177 for Cassel vs. 1555 for Smith. Per rush, Smith's advantage is only 190 yards per 363 rushes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 In the last 80 starts for Smith (since the OP thought 80 was a good sample size) vs. Since Cassel took over for Brady (71 starts): Smith 108 TDs, 48 INTs, 89.33 QB Rating, 1575-2522 (62.5%), 17470 Yards @ 6.93 YPA, 276 rushes for 1216 Yards @ 4.41 YPC, 4 TDs Cassel 94 TDs, 68 INTs, 82.22 QB Rating, 1375-2330 (59.0%), 15474 Yards @ 6.64 YPA, 235 rushes for 903 Yards @ 3.84 YPC. 4 TDs Update (End of 2015-16 Season) - Smith: 103 TDs, 35 INTs, 93.1 QB Rating, 1476-2328 (63.4%), 16583 Yards @ 7.12 YPA, 306 Rushes for 1526 Yards @ 4.99 YPC, 6 TDs I took out Cassel's backup play behind Brady, as that would just lower his stats efficiency-wise (2-2 TD INTs, 6.5 YPA, 56.4%, etc.) I also didn't count the game this year, as he did not attempt a pass or rush. So technically, 72 starts. 47-32-1 and 33-38-0 (You can't seriously give Cassel this year's Week 1 win, as he didn't pass or rush.) Update (2015-16 End)- Smith: 53-26-1 BTW, I'm a USC alum, I would have a predisposition to like Cassel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Were these stats in the original post massaged to make the 2 show really similar? I put them both in here and came up with this. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=SmitAl03&p2=CassMa00&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6= Not really a smith fan personally but let's at least use the real numbers if we're comparing. I'm glad you saw that, but I called him out for deliberately obscuring the facts through data selection a couple of pages ago. liquidfriend isn't a friend of Truth. Whether or not he was under the influence of some unidentified liquid when he wrote the post is up for debate. He's either a really bad liar, or really bad at discovering facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 BTW, I'm a USC alum, I would have a preposition to like Cassel. Did you mean predisposition? Or do USC alums have a special class of English words used specifically in reference to ex-USC quarterbacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Did you mean predisposition? Or do USC alums have a special class of English words used specifically in reference to ex-USC quarterbacks? Darn it, my speech recognition put that in and I missed it. I do sometimes have a problem pronouncing words in a way that the computer can't or won't confuse the words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Darn it, my speech recognition put that in and I missed it. I do sometimes have a problem pronouncing words in a way that the computer can't or won't confuse the words. This is sad. [in a purely jocular mood] I have sunk to calling out English mistakes, only to find out I was making fun of a poor, defenseless, and emotionless computer. Thank you, Technology, for ruining the Internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 This is sad. [in a purely jocular mood] I have sunk to calling out English mistakes, only to find out I was making fun of a poor, defenseless, and emotionless computer. Thank you, Technology, for ruining the Internet. No, I take the blame for not catching it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.