PhataLerror 370 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 I have a few comments. During our 1–5 start, the line was so bad and Smith wasn't producing with that line to the point where I read a lot of people saying why can't Smith get the ball out quickly and why doesn't Smith make the line any better? They, of course, would then give Manning or Brady as an example of a quarterback who does that. Whenever you compare any non-elite to an elite when no one went into the conversation thinking that non-elite was elite, it's not likely to be reasonable expectations wise. Rodgers' name was conspicuously missing from that list of elites. No Jordy Nelson? Damage to the offensive line? Guess what? Everyone's darling from the 2005 draft has a tougher year than Smith: Rodgers: 319/528 @ 6.7 yards per attempt for 3,530 yards, 30 touchdowns, 7 interceptions, 93.7 passer rating, 297 yards lost on 41 sacks, 3 lost fumbles, 6 plays of 40+ yards, 30.3% first down conversion rate, 55 rushes for 332 yards, 1 rushing touchdown Smith: 293/446 @ 7.5 yards per attempt for 3,330 yards, 18 touchdowns, 5 interceptions, 96.7 passer rating, 226 yards lost on 44 sacks, 0 lost fumbles, 10 plays of 40+ yards, 32.5% first down conversion rate, 75 rushes for 437 yards, 2 rushing touchdowns On Rodgers' 624 action plays the Packers gained 3,565 yards (5.7 yards per action play) and scored 31 touchdowns against 10 turnovers. Rodgers' passing production set up 7 rushing touchdowns by other Packers players, and also led to 26 field goal attempts. On Smith's 565 action plays the Chiefs gained 3,541 yards (6.3 yards per action play) and scored 20 touchdowns against 5 turnovers. Smith's passing production set up 16 rushing touchdowns by other Chiefs players, and also led to 37 field goal attempts. Rodgers' action plays represent 63.6% of the team's total. Smith's action plays represent 63.6% of the team's total. The Packers' defense has given up 32 touchdowns and 22 field goals. The Chiefs' defense has given up 31 touchdowns and 17 field goals. The Packers have played against a 117-108 strength of schedule, and have a 67-83 strength of victory. The average point differential in defeat was 12.6. The Chiefs have played against a 112-113 strength of schedule, and have a 64-86 strength of victory. The average point differential in defeat was 7.8. Both players' teams are 10-5. The role that these quarterbacks play for their teams is differentiated not by burden but by scheme. At every significant measure they are statistically somewhere between ball park and dead even. In many measures Smith has actually been more productive. Would I trade Alex Smith's supporting cast as it has been through the year for that of Aaron Rodgers'? Rodgers' pass blocking has been better, but I would probably Maclin, Kelce, and West over Cobb, Jones, and Lacy, and yet it really is very close. Has Smith been a better complement to his team than Rodgers has been to his? The Chiefs have scored more points offensively, and as a rate Smith has been responsible for a little over half of the turnovers attributed to Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers' résumé is significantly better than Smith's, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that Smith's spent years being weighed down by relatively untalented offensive supporting casts (when he wasn't being weighed down by untalented coaching staffs), and once some of the 'elites' have to spend a full season playing through the adversity that is to Smith 'life in the NFL', all of a sudden they don't look so remarkable. If I had to choose a quarterback to play under less than ideal circumstances, the facts suggest that Smith, not Rodgers, is your quarterback of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azchief21 5,278 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Rodgers' name was conspicuously missing from that list of elites. No Jordy Nelson? Damage to the offensive line? Guess what? Everyone's darling from the 2005 draft has a tougher year than Smith: Rodgers: 319/528 @ 6.7 yards per attempt for 3,530 yards, 30 touchdowns, 7 interceptions, 93.7 passer rating, 297 yards lost on 41 sacks, 3 lost fumbles, 6 plays of 40+ yards, 30.3% first down conversion rate, 55 rushes for 332 yards, 1 rushing touchdown Smith: 293/446 @ 7.5 yards per attempt for 3,330 yards, 18 touchdowns, 5 interceptions, 96.7 passer rating, 226 yards lost on 44 sacks, 0 lost fumbles, 10 plays of 40+ yards, 32.5% first down conversion rate, 75 rushes for 437 yards, 2 rushing touchdowns On Rodgers' 624 action plays the Packers gained 3,565 yards (5.7 yards per action play) and scored 31 touchdowns against 10 turnovers. Rodgers' passing production set up 7 rushing touchdowns by other Packers players, and also led to 26 field goal attempts. On Smith's 565 action plays the Chiefs gained 3,541 yards (6.3 yards per action play) and scored 20 touchdowns against 5 turnovers. Smith's passing production set up 16 rushing touchdowns by other Chiefs players, and also led to 37 field goal attempts. Rodgers' action plays represent 63.6% of the team's total. Smith's action plays represent 63.6% of the team's total. The Packers' defense has given up 32 touchdowns and 22 field goals. The Chiefs' defense has given up 31 touchdowns and 17 field goals. The Packers have played against a 117-108 strength of schedule, and have a 67-83 strength of victory. The average point differential in defeat was 12.6. The Chiefs have played against a 112-113 strength of schedule, and have a 64-86 strength of victory. The average point differential in defeat was 7.8. Both players' teams are 10-5. The role that these quarterbacks play for their teams is differentiated not by burden but by scheme. At every significant measure they are statistically somewhere between ball park and dead even. In many measures Smith has actually been more productive. Would I trade Alex Smith's supporting cast as it has been through the year for that of Aaron Rodgers'? Rodgers' pass blocking has been better, but I would probably Maclin, Kelce, and West over Cobb, Jones, and Lacy, and yet it really is very close. Has Smith been a better complement to his team than Rodgers has been to his? The Chiefs have scored more points offensively, and as a rate Smith has been responsible for a little over half of the turnovers attributed to Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers' résumé is significantly better than Smith's, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that Smith's spent years being weighed down by relatively untalented offensive supporting casts (when he wasn't being weighed down by untalented coaching staffs), and once some of the 'elites' have to spend a full season playing through the adversity that is to Smith 'life in the NFL', all of a sudden they don't look so remarkable. If I had to choose a quarterback to play under less than ideal circumstances, the facts suggest that Smith, not Rodgers, is your quarterback of choice. wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West 6,713 Posted December 30, 2015 Author Share Posted December 30, 2015 Phatal ! wow is the right response... w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Phatal ! wow is the right response... w A little surprising, the similarities, no? It was amazing that as I kept digging deeper, I kept finding details that made Alex Smith, 2015 look every bit the equal of Aaron Rodgers, 2015. If total individual touchdowns and playoff appearances are not given an exaggerated weighting in comparisons, I see two quarterbacks in similar circumstances generating similar positive production. After that, I see one quarterback that is making fewer mistakes than the other. That quarterback is the one playing for the Chiefs. The most interesting part of this: No one can say that Smith is doing this because he has an elite runningback. The elite one hasn't been playing for two-thirds of the season, and the second-year undrafted free agent backup has missed time, too. Smith is not an element in the offense, but rather the point around which everything is built. Of course, this is the way it has been since Smith arrived in Kansas City, but too many people were stuck on narratives and prejudices surrounding Smith that derived from a time when his coaching and supporting cast were really pathetic. So here we are, staring at the prospect of a post-season run that goes beyond the Wild Card Playoff. Can Smith help the Chiefs get to and then win in the Super Bowl? As it has always been with every Super Bowl-winning quarterback, if the majority of his teammates do their jobs, Smith is perfectly capable of doing his. The team that plays better will win, and Smith is excellent at being the sort of player that makes the team around him better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 605 Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 A little surprising, the similarities, no? It was amazing that as I kept digging deeper, I kept finding details that made Alex Smith, 2015 look every bit the equal of Aaron Rodgers, 2015. If total individual touchdowns and playoff appearances are not given an exaggerated weighting in comparisons, I see two quarterbacks in similar circumstances generating similar positive production. After that, I see one quarterback that is making fewer mistakes than the other. That quarterback is the one playing for the Chiefs. The most interesting part of this: No one can say that Smith is doing this because he has an elite runningback. The elite one hasn't been playing for two-thirds of the season, and the second-year undrafted free agent backup has missed time, too. Smith is not an element in the offense, but rather the point around which everything is built. Of course, this is the way it has been since Smith arrived in Kansas City, but too many people were stuck on narratives and prejudices surrounding Smith that derived from a time when his coaching and supporting cast were really pathetic. So here we are, staring at the prospect of a post-season run that goes beyond the Wild Card Playoff. Can Smith help the Chiefs get to and then win in the Super Bowl? As it has always been with every Super Bowl-winning quarterback, if the majority of his teammates do their jobs, Smith is perfectly capable of doing his. The team that plays better will win, and Smith is excellent at being the sort of player that makes the team around him better. I have seen some analysts talking about the Chiefs winning without Charles, but they stop that. Most of them don't try to answer why. If they do, they mention the turnover differential. We had that when Charles was here. Or they say it's Andy Reid, he was coach when Charles was playing. They don't have to give any credit to Smith, unless it's just ball control (though I have seen some references to his running), because that would be like committing treason or journalistic suicide, but the offense is spreading the ball around more and not force-feeding Charles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Draft one of these Stanford lineman! Omg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANATIC 852 Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 I have seen some analysts talking about the Chiefs winning without Charles, but they stop that. Most of them don't try to answer why. If they do, they mention the turnover differential. We had that when Charles was here. Or they say it's Andy Reid, he was coach when Charles was playing. They don't have to give any credit to Smith, unless it's just ball control (though I have seen some references to his running), because that would be like committing treason or journalistic suicide, but the offense is spreading the ball around more and not force-feeding Charles. I remember Charles mostly not getting enough touches. The entire story is lousy o-line. Difference now.....adjusted plays acknowledging lousy pass protection and lesser opponents. This o=line is actually much worse than it appears! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 I remember Charles mostly not getting enough touches. The entire story is lousy o-line. Difference now.....adjusted plays acknowledging lousy pass protection and lesser opponents. This o=line is actually much worse than it appears! Force feeding Charles my ass. He never touched it enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANATIC 852 Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Force feeding Charles my ass. He never touched it enough. Exactly. Anyone that thinks this team is better with Charles out is dillusional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 605 Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Force feeding Charles my ass. He never touched it enough. I wasn't talking about runs. They pass the ball to him a lot and he never really got the ball deeper that eight in a box. Receptions plus rushes equaled a good chunk of our plays. If you take our runs plus plays in our first five games with Charles, he was the target/runner 101/300 plays (>33%). 71 rushes, 30 targets. He got the ball, it's just he didn't get it at the right time in games and when he got it in the passing game, they were short. I would rather have those 30 targets (six targets per game) be to someone else because it would likely be deeper. Or get Charles to catch it better in space or deeper. These behind the line of scrimmage type of passes weren't working. Since he has been gone, I feel that those passes have been at least slightly deeper. If we could have used him correctly and perhaps more and earlier in the game, it would be better than what we have with West and Ware, but other people have noticed that the offense has been better with the ball being spread around. This also happened in Seattle with Marshawn Lynch being out. About lunch? No, but they way they use players can produce better than that what they were trying to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 605 Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Exactly. Anyone that thinks this team is better with Charles out is dillusional Just to be clear, I don't think we're better without him. I just thought that we used him untraditionally when he could've run traditionally more and gotten untraditional yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 I believe that Charles with this line play and play calling would be ripping off 150 yards per game. It is a shame we don't have him. At least we had great depth there. Had it been Mac or Kelse, it would be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANATIC 852 Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Just to be clear, I don't think we're better without him. I just thought that we used him untraditionally when he could've run traditionally more and gotten untraditional yards. Just to be clear... I did not say this was about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 605 Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Just to be clear... I did not say this was about you. Ok, no offense intended nor taken. I could just see my previous posts making that ambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 I wasn't talking about runs. They pass the ball to him a lot and he never really got the ball deeper that eight in a box. Receptions plus rushes equaled a good chunk of our plays. If you take our runs plus plays in our first five games with Charles, he was the target/runner 101/300 plays (>33%). 71 rushes, 30 targets. He got the ball, it's just he didn't get it at the right time in games and when he got it in the passing game, they were short. I would rather have those 30 targets (six targets per game) be to someone else because it would likely be deeper. Or get Charles to catch it better in space or deeper. These behind the line of scrimmage type of passes weren't working. Since he has been gone, I feel that those passes have been at least slightly deeper. If we could have used him correctly and perhaps more and earlier in the game, it would be better than what we have with West and Ware, but other people have noticed that the offense has been better with the ball being spread around. This also happened in Seattle with Marshawn Lynch being out. About lunch? No, but they way they use players can produce better than that what they were trying to do. I wasnt referring to you. But I've read that a couple times. Andy, almost never ran him 20 times. When he did I think we were undefeated. He was more worried about throwing him a telegraphed pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 I wasnt referring to you. But I've read that a couple times. Andy, almost never ran him 20 times. When he did I think we were undefeated. He was more worried about throwing him a telegraphed pass. The Chiefs lost in the last game in which Jamaal Charles carried the ball more than 19 times. Part of that was because he fumbled twice. The Chiefs won all three games in 2014 in which Charles carried the ball more than 19 times. In all three games, the opponent was held to under 20 points. It seemed to me that the majority of his carries were early in either half in order for Smith to get into a rhythm behind a shaky offensive line, and therefore, it seemed to me that any correlation between Charles' number of carries and Chiefs wins was restricted to game flow, and not a matter of the Chiefs physically imposing their will on other teams. Another interesting stat: Although Charles' career yards per carry is 5.5, during the Andy Reid years he has had only two games where he carried the ball 20 or more times and averaged 5 or more yards per carry. In fact, when Charles' yards per carry has been 5 or more, the Chiefs are 5-6. Charles needs to be part of the game plan, but not the game plan. Runningbacks can't carry teams through a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 The Chiefs lost in the last game in which Jamaal Charles carried the ball more than 19 times. Part of that was because he fumbled twice. The Chiefs won all three games in 2014 in which Charles carried the ball more than 19 times. In all three games, the opponent was held to under 20 points. It seemed to me that the majority of his carries were early in either half in order for Smith to get into a rhythm behind a shaky offensive line, and therefore, it seemed to me that any correlation between Charles' number of carries and Chiefs wins was restricted to game flow, and not a matter of the Chiefs physically imposing their will on other teams. Another interesting stat: Although Charles' career yards per carry is 5.5, during the Andy Reid years he has had only two games where he carried the ball 20 or more times and averaged 5 or more yards per carry. In fact, when Charles' yards per carry has been 5 or more, the Chiefs are 5-6. Charles needs to be part of the game plan, but not the game plan. Runningbacks can't carry teams through a season. We look like the pats running game- don't know who will get it but it's effective! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 According to nfl.com, the Chiefs' offensive linemen with the most starts in 2015 provided a total experience of 124 games started, about a season-and-a-half of starting experience on average per player. The Chiefs are the 2015 playoff team with the least starting experience on the offensive line, and the second 'greenest' in the league (in front of only the St. Louis Rams). Of the ten league teams with the least experienced offensive lines, only the Patriots accumulated a better regular season record than the Chiefs. I'm not a fan of inexperienced offensive linemen, but the Chiefs have done relatively well with talent subject to so little development at the professional level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANATIC 852 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 According to nfl.com, the Chiefs' offensive linemen with the most starts in 2015 provided a total experience of 124 games started, about a season-and-a-half of starting experience on average per player. The Chiefs are the 2015 playoff team with the least starting experience on the offensive line, and the second 'greenest' in the league (in front of only the St. Louis Rams). Of the ten league teams with the least experienced offensive lines, only the Patriots accumulated a better regular season record than the Chiefs. I'm not a fan of inexperienced offensive linemen, but the Chiefs have done relatively well with talent subject to so little development at the professional level. Inexperienced or not they stink. Stink is still stink. Maybe years from now a few may be better. Does not help KC today when we have a chance to WIN NOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Inexperienced or not they stink. Stink is still stink. Maybe years from now a few may be better. Does not help KC today when we have a chance to WIN NOW. They have been poor, and maybe more to the point, inconsistent. They're much better at run blocking than pass blocking, two completely different skills. But their experience explains a lot. When you consider that 19 of this offensive line's 80 starts came from two players drafted in the sixth round in 2014, you can acknowledge that better talent with more experience would be desirable, but should we have expected an 11-5 team despite so little experience? I didn't. This might be just enough. The Chiefs currently have 42 players under contract that will count $120.5 million against the salary cap in 2016. The only offensive lineman not currently under contract beyond this year is Jeff Allen, and presumably he would be replaced by Ben Grubbs. Unlike the last two seasons which saw the exodus of starting linemen Branden Albert, Jon Asamoah, Geoff Schwartz, Rodney Hudson, and Ryan Harris, the five of which combined for 59 starts during their final season with the Chiefs, the Chiefs will head into 2016 with the opportunity to add depth and competition rather than merely plug holes in the lineup. If they can re-sign Allen at a good price, that would be nice. I anticipate that the offensive line will get less negative attention in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Jeff Allen should be signed. I think he can be signed for a two year deal worth $7 M including incentives. He has not a history of health and production. Although I think he is going to be worth the signing, he is clearly not worth top dollar money. A two year deal takes the pressure off the Chiefs, and provides Allen the ability to get more money in the next contract. The Chiefs have Grubbs signed, but I am not confident he will return. On the one hand, http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/ben-grubbs/ indicates Grubbs represents $6.2 M in dead money next year, on the other hand http://overthecap.com/calculator/kansas-city-chiefs/ indicates the Chiefs will save $100 K by letting him go. This is because his contract calls for him to earn $6.3 M next year. Unless there is something I am not aware of, it is clear the Chiefs blew it with the Grubbs signing. If you keep Allen, you may want to say goodbye to Grubbs. A guy I want here is Geoff Schwartz' younger brother. It won't be cheap. Mitch may cost an average of $7 M per season. Jah Reid is signed for next year, so why would the Chiefs want to sign Schwartz? Reid replaces Stephenson, and I do not believe that means he is your starter at RT. He can play multiple positions, and he gives effort. He is not a legit starter, nor is he paid like one. Your 2016 starters - Fish, Allen, Morse, LDT, Schwartz Bench - Fulton, Reid, Player to be announced (Draft) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I have to agree with sign Allen opinion, although I am gun shy to go all in. When Albert went down in 2013 and Stepheson stepped in like he had played there for 10 years, I thought Stephenson was a rock star. After the 2014 suspension he couldn't get on the field. I thought it was a stupid punishment. Come to find out Stephenson is not an NFL starter. With Allen? I watched guys swat him away like a fly and run right past him. I thought Fulton was twice the G Allen was or would ever be. But Allen has turned out to be a pretty serviceable G while Fulton has had to change to C to stay relovant. Jah Ried (or Rul) looked like a complete train wreck and now I am hoping he can start this week. I thought Grubbs would be the best Olineman on the field. Oline is a really tough position to evaluate or I am a complete moron. I hope for the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANATIC 852 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I have to agree with sign Allen opinion, although I am gun shy to go all in. When Albert went down in 2013 and Stepheson stepped in like he had played there for 10 years, I thought Stephenson was a rock star. After the 2014 suspension he couldn't get on the field. I thought it was a stupid punishment. Come to find out Stephenson is not an NFL starter. With Allen? I watched guys swat him away like a fly and run right past him. I thought Fulton was twice the G Allen was or would ever be. But Allen has turned out to be a pretty serviceable G while Fulton has had to change to C to stay relovant. Jah Ried (or Rul) looked like a complete train wreck and now I am hoping he can start this week. I thought Grubbs would be the best Olineman on the field. Oline is a really tough position to evaluate or I am a complete moron. I hope for the latter. All those guys are below avg or avg at best. I would like all to be gone or back ups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefmanzada 466 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 All those guys are below avg or avg at best. I would like all to be gone or back ups. Jeff Allen is doing great. Fulton and Reid are good enough backups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 All those guys are below avg or avg at best. I would like all to be gone or back ups. Morse has been great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.