Our next quarterback........

[Calichief 3,016]

Great find. It seems to be a fairly good predictor of success in the NFL. By the way, where is Alex Smith on this list?

Bottom

[KCSLC2008 606]

Check out this list:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_career_300-yard_passing_games_in_the_NFL

Yards per attempt, touchdowns, touchdown to interception ratio, and wins are better stats. Third-down conversions and red zone conversions, too. Heck, I'll even put a stat out there that Smith is lower, yards in the air is a better stat because it spreads a defense out vertically (even though short spreads it out for horizontally and is more efficient).

 

Note that I'm not saying that Smith is high on any of those lists either. My objection is not to prop up Smith, but rather note how worthless that stat is when often that happens due to garbage time or catch up games and a lot of games are stopped short of 300 because you're running out the clock.

 

I mean, look at the game Miami just played, lost 36-7, Tannehill got 300 and the last hundred or so were from garbage time. Yet, that will count here. Smith had a great game against New Orleans and he got 299 yards but that won't show up because it's 1 yard short. Two touchdowns in the last four minutes and that's not good enough for this list.

 

There was a stat out there stating how 300 yard passers lose more often then they win and it's due to that garbage time stat and often there is a 300 yard loser who loses to a 300 yard winner in a game.

[eraser 722]

Bottom

He is not going to throw that many 300 yard games. That is why everything else on the team needs to be next to perfect. 

 

The Chiefs will be missing Grubbs at LG. On the surface that would seem a really bad thing, considering their lack of quality depth on OL. However, Grubbs has allowed 45 pressures so far this year. Think about that, and let it sink in. That means for every five snaps of the ball, Alex Smith has a defender in his face that Grubbs (4 years, $24 M and $8 M guaranteed). That is pretty scary. So, which will be worse, a Vet, who has allowed this much distress, or one of the least competent reserve lineman in the NFL coming off the bench? 

[KCSLC2008 606]

Edit: Nevermind.

[KCSLC2008 606]

He is not going to throw that many 300 yard games. That is why everything else on the team needs to be next to perfect.

A quarterback, even Smith, does not need a near perfect team to get 300, a meaningless stat. Yes, you want your quarterback to contribute to the win, but significantly high number of 300 yard games are losses.

 

You want your team winning by enough to sit on the ball and that might take 300 yard pace game down to 200 something. Smith had been winning and while some of those games are with low yard numbers, some of those were dragged down by running out the clock.

 

You want a team with a great running back to use him and that might lead to less passing. That was more of a factor in San Francisco than here because Reid doesn't use his runningback as much in the running game and Smith played more games there. You can make that quarterback pass more, but his team is not winning by not using their strengths.

 

Reid is pass happy but the total attempts are low - which might be attributed to a lower third down conversion rate.

 

Talking about that, that's much more important than 300 yards. So are touchdowns passes. So is touchdown to interception ratio. So is red zone conversions. There so many more stats that aren't boosted by garbage time that are significant to a quarterback playing well. I won't claim that Smiths is high in any of those.

 

Before anyone claims that I am defending Smith, how would saying that Smith is not good at a meaningless stat be defending him by me saying that he's not good at meaningful stats either?

[azchief21 5,278]

Yards per attempt, touchdowns, touchdown to interception ratio, and wins are better stats. Third-down conversions and red zone conversions, too. Heck, I'll even put a stat out there that Smith is lower, yards in the air is a better stat because it spreads a defense out vertically (even though short spreads it out for horizontally and is more efficient).

 

Note that I'm not saying that Smith is high on any of those lists either. My objection is not to prop up Smith, but rather note how worthless that stat is when often that happens due to garbage time or catch up games and a lot of games are stopped short of 300 because you're running out the clock.

 

I mean, look at the game Miami just played, lost 36-7, Tannehill got 300 and the last hundred or so were from garbage time. Yet, that will count here. Smith had a great game against New Orleans and he got 299 yards but that won't show up because it's 1 yard short. Two touchdowns in the last four minutes and that's not good enough for this list.

 

There was a stat out there stating how 300 yard passers lose more often then they win and it's due to that garbage time stat and often there is a 300 yard loser who loses to a 300 yard winner in a game.

Yes let's look at this game. Brady had 350 yards and 4 TDs. NE won 36-7. The point of my link was not how they got 300 yds but the capability of throwing for yardage. The top of the list are considered the best of all time. The list from Smith and down are for the most part considered average or less. Check out this link (also click on link to right to show specific games) and notice the correlation between game winning drives and 300+ yd games. Not only can you get 300 yds in garbage time but often you have to throw for many yards to bring your team back. AS has FIVE  300+ in 10+ years. One every other year and 16 GW drives.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/gwd_career.htm

[KCSLC2008 606]

Yes let's look at this game. Brady had 350 yards and 4 TDs. NE won 36-7. The point of my link was not how they got 300 yds but the capability of throwing for yardage. The top of the list are considered the best of all time. The list from Smith and down are for the most part considered average or less. Check out this link (also click on link to right to show specific games) and notice the correlation between game winning drives and 300+ yd games. Not only can you get 300 yds in garbage time but often you have to throw for many yards to bring your team back. AS has FIVE 300+ in 10+ years. One every other year and 16 GW drives.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/gwd_career.htm

But we already knew this. Every week we get ground-breaking stats to show what we already know. And this week, it wasn't to show that Smith is not Brady, Rodgers, Favre, Manning, or Brees, but rather bottom of a list. I'm saying that how low he is on the list is not that relevant when the gameplans didn't call for a bunch of passes that he inexplicably failed at executing, but rather a run-based time consuming offense that he ran prior to this year reasonably well. How low he is on the list versus some other QBs who lose more is contributed by how often we sit on the ball.

 

I mean, yes, they greats do it, but that never was in the conversation with Smith. None of us have said he's there, was there, or ever will be there. It just seems that a lot of these stats are a product of what we're trying to do and in case of volume, Smith would get more if we tried to do something different. Now, we might lose more because that's not his strength, but he wouldn't be so low on that list.

 

Outside of the greats, of which we know Smith isn't, 300 yard games show who plays in passing offenses or garbage time catchups. Red zone, third down, yards per attempt, touchdowns, TD/INT ratio, etc. transcend systems and show whether a QB is playing well (note that I don't have completion percentage there). Other things like comebacks, etc. are good, too. Smith isn't high on any of these but the problem is not the stat but the QB. With the 300 yard stat, the problem lies with the stat, too.

[azchief21 5,278]

But we already knew this. Every week we get ground-breaking stats to show what we already know. And this week, it wasn't to show that Smith is not Brady, Rodgers, Favre, Manning, or Brees, but rather bottom of a list. I'm saying that how low he is on the list is not that relevant when the gameplans didn't call for a bunch of passes that he inexplicably failed at executing, but rather a run-based time consuming offense that he ran prior to this year reasonably well. How low he is on the list versus some other QBs who lose more is contributed by how often we sit on the ball.

 

I mean, yes, they greats do it, but that never was in the conversation with Smith. None of us have said he's there, was there, or ever will be there. It just seems that a lot of these stats are a product of what we're trying to do and in case of volume, Smith would get more if we tried to do something different. Now, we might lose more because that's not his strength, but he wouldn't be so low on that list.

 

Outside of the greats, of which we know Smith isn't, 300 yard games show who plays in passing offenses or garbage time catchups. Red zone, third down, yards per attempt, touchdowns, TD/INT ratio, etc. transcend systems and show whether a QB is playing well (note that I don't have completion percentage there). Other things like comebacks, etc. are good, too. Smith isn't high on any of these but the problem is not the stat but the QB. With the 300 yard stat, the problem lies with the stat, too.

You're a Wordsmith 

[KCSLC2008 606]

You're a Wordsmith

Yep.

[Mugsy 225]

Johnny Football, Geno Smith, Colin Kapernick, and RGIII were all spread/system QBs....  I don't think Mariotta does much and I wonder if Alex Smith is as good as it gets when it comes to QBs coming from spread offenses? 

 

I don't want to draft a spread QB. I don't want to draft Goff. Thoughts?

[liquidfriend 1,151]

Not all spread offenses are the same. You should study the Ducks offense when he was at QB.

 

Goff is a buyer beware.

[DieHard 2,061]

Even the great Andrew Luck looks pretty average without protection.

[liquidfriend 1,151]

And your point is?

[DieHard 2,061]

He is the, supposedly, the best QB to come out of the draft since Peyton. My comment is about our problem is that we haven't drafted a QB in the first round and those problems will disappear once we do.

 

If we ignore last year since it is less than a full season ago:

 

Bortles

Manuel

Bridgewater

EJ Manual

Luck

Griffin

Tannehill

Weedon

Newton

Locker

Gabbert

Ponder

Bradford

Tebow

Stafford

Sanchez

Freeman

 

Which of these first round QBs magically fixes our problem and makes the fans say we finally have a franchise QB.

 

I know. Luck. Well he is 3-5 just like us even though he is as good as it gets as far as QBs from the draft.

[DieHard 2,061]

16 of the last 17 first round QBs, are no better than what we have.

[KCSLC2008 606]

16 of the last 17 first round QBs, are no better than what we have.

Even if you include Newton, Stafford, Bridgewater (potential), and Tannehill (sometimes), it's still a minority (5, including Luck) of those 17. I feel we will draft someone as good as those four if we draft them as BPA. If we draft just to draft, we'll get someone along the other 12. Maybe you can add Bortles to the list (Luck + Bortles + those four = 6). If so, that's 6 of 17 being as good eventually or at times.

 

Worth taking a risk if they project out better than 8 of those 17. If not, draft the next year if better than 7 of those 17 and so on.

 

Even if you add two of these three (Bradford, RGIII, Sanchez) as being as good but with bad injuries or coaching, it's still 50/50. Again, worth a shot, but it's not automatic.

[eraser 722]

You cannot give up trying to find a QB in the draft, even though the odds are very much against you. Every year we hear people complain that the Chiefs should find a quarterback or just go get a QB in the draft. It is often phrased in the past tense as in the Chiefs have never drafted a QB.... The truth is it is darn hard to be in position to draft one high, and even then the odds are against you.

 

Andrew Luck was seen as a lock to be an H of F quality QB. He is good. However, his stats have declined every year he has played in the NFL, and more importantly, he has declined.

 

The Chiefs should draft a QB if one is available. NE was lucky. GB was lucky. You do your best in the draft, but in the end it all comes down to luck, and it comes down to the system that player goes into.

 

Smith is not perfect. He drives me nuts. They should look for a QB in the draft. However, for now, they have Smith, Daniel, and Murray. That is better than some teams in this league.

[FANATIC 852]

You cannot give up trying to find a QB in the draft, even though the odds are very much against you. Every year we hear people complain that the Chiefs should find a quarterback or just go get a QB in the draft. It is often phrased in the past tense as in the Chiefs have never drafted a QB.... The truth is it is darn hard to be in position to draft one high, and even then the odds are against you.

 

Andrew Luck was seen as a lock to be an H of F quality QB. He is good. However, his stats have declined every year he has played in the NFL, and more importantly, he has declined.

 

The Chiefs should draft a QB if one is available. NE was lucky. GB was lucky. You do your best in the draft, but in the end it all comes down to luck, and it comes down to the system that player goes into.

 

Smith is not perfect. He drives me nuts. They should look for a QB in the draft. However, for now, they have Smith, Daniel, and Murray. That is better than some teams in this league.

So the Chiefs are simply unlucky. Well thats makes things much easier going forward. Their luck is due to change.

[azchief21 5,278]

You cannot give up trying to find a QB in the draft, even though the odds are very much against you. Every year we hear people complain that the Chiefs should find a quarterback or just go get a QB in the draft. It is often phrased in the past tense as in the Chiefs have never drafted a QB.... The truth is it is darn hard to be in position to draft one high, and even then the odds are against you.

 

Andrew Luck was seen as a lock to be an H of F quality QB. He is good. However, his stats have declined every year he has played in the NFL, and more importantly, he has declined.

 

The Chiefs should draft a QB if one is available. NE was lucky. GB was lucky. You do your best in the draft, but in the end it all comes down to luck, and it comes down to the system that player goes into.

 

Smith is not perfect. He drives me nuts. They should look for a QB in the draft. However, for now, they have Smith, Daniel, and Murray. That is better than some teams in this league.

GB isn't lucky. They had a HOF QB and drafted Rodgers anyway. That's why they've been good for the better part of 20 years. Remember we haven't had a drafted QB win a game since forever. Chiefs always figure our QB is good enough. Bono, Grbac, Smith, Thigpen, Cassel, blah blah

[liquidfriend 1,151]

Luck has declined because the line play has declined, Pep Hamilton was a step down from Bruce Arians and they've lost balance.

 

Nobody said a QB suddenly means you need no line or receivers or anything. Nobody. A great QB can make a mediocre line and receivers look better than they really are.

 

Look at Denvers Oline, since Peyton took control again, and James Jones while in Oakland than again back in GB.

 

Finding a QB like that takes extreme luck and the Chiefs are typically built to where you don't need a QB like that to win.

 

They need a solid QB that can lead the offense and sometimes put the ball in his hands and win a game when the Defense has a bad day. Even great Defenses have a bad game.

 

They don't need the next Tom Brady. They can win a lot with the next Rivers or Andy Dalton.

[Guest Okiechief1]

GB isn't lucky. They had a HOF QB and drafted Rodgers anyway. That's why they've been good for the better part of 20 years. Remember we haven't had a drafted QB win a game since forever. Chiefs always figure our QB is good enough. Bono, Grbac, Smith, Thigpen, Cassel, blah blah

They were lucky in the sense that Rogers slid as far as he did. Leading up to that draft he was in contention to still be taken #1 and I'm not sure anybody saw him falling as far as he did.

 

To get lucky you have to take the chance which is something KC hasn't been willing to do. 1987 was the last year a QB we drafted started and won a game, and oddly enough it was Blackledge. I think Croyle was the only QB we drafted to even get a shot at a win since Blackledge.

 

It's time

[DieHard 2,061]

GB isn't lucky. They had a HOF QB and drafted Rodgers anyway. That's why they've been good for the better part of 20 years. Remember we haven't had a drafted QB win a game since forever. Chiefs always figure our QB is good enough. Bono, Grbac, Smith, Thigpen, Cassel, blah blah

The thing I like about what they did was let Rogers sit and mature. To many teams throw these guys in behind a bad line and kill their confidence. If we draft a round one QB, and I am not against it, I hope they can let him sit for a couple years.

[FANATIC 852]

The thing I like about what they did was let Rogers sit and mature. To many teams throw these guys in behind a bad line and kill their confidence. If we draft a round one QB, and I am not against it, I hope they can let him sit for a couple years.

They had that Farve guy.

 

So get a 1st Round QB , sit him2 years , and he is a free agent when? Great....we can look to 2020 for a competitive team. 

[FANATIC 852]

Chiefs Shortcut and pick up Kapernick as usual.

[eraser 722]

Paxton Lynch tossed an INT (his second of the year) but still had over 300 yards in a loss to Navy. Does not scare me away from him. I doubt it will hurt his stock much, although I wish it would.