Do we rest starters?

[Calichief 3,016]

 

Wait. Somebody threw out one specific game and wrote Foles off just totally ignoring that Foles lit up the Colts. That was 10 yds/att and 72%. We aren't talking about Tim Tebow or Mark Sanchez, this guy had 27 TDs and only 2 INTs in the NFL. If he had a chance to work with Hill, Kelce, Maclin, Conley, Ware on a regular basis...who knows. But to write him of after he has one game that is average is silly. Smith has had a lot of games as a Chief that were worse than Foles vs. JAX. and he's had 4 years to work with this offense. Foles has had 6 quarters.

 

Here are Foles stats as a Chief so far. This is not a drop off. Sorry

36 55 65.5 27.5 410 7.5 205.0 3 0 15 27.3 49 7 1 4 105.9

You Are talking to def ears in here. I'm the only one here on board with you. The upside to foles is greater with a full offseason.

[liquidfriend 1,151]

The upside to Foles is a very average QB.  Lets have higher standards than that.

[azchief21 5,278]

The upside to Foles is a very average QB.  Lets have higher standards than that.

And this is based on 6 quarters with the starting offense as a Chief?

[KCSLC2008 605]

You Are talking to def ears in here. I'm the only one here on board with you. The upside to foles is greater with a full offseason.

I had no argument against it. I just didn't like either Jacksonville being claimed as bad and therefore Foles is bad and then hand picked games to show that Smith is as bad. Just like hand picking good games by Smith wouldn't make Smith great. Foles would have good games, great games, bad games, etc. If Reid wants to give him a chance, go for it. Just give the guys the tools around him (done), call the game to take advantage of that (sometimes done, sometimes not), and support him by good game planning and in game decisions/adaptions.

 

This board isn't a collection of deaf ears. Everyone, or most everyone, have said that they want to draft a long term guy, all have acknowledged Smith's poorer play, all want consistently good to great QB play, but not all think Foles is that guy or simply that Smith falling short has any effect on Foles being good (enough) or not. His Rams experience was an outlier, as was his best year in Philly.

 

I think you have been fair to Smith, acknowledging better play in some games, defending his pick against Denver, etc. but this whole deaf ears or no one listening to you or inability to criticize Smith or Reid is getting really old. Just be fair, continue to be fair, call it like it is, state your opinion. I can only think of one person who would go against stating these things and it's not me, obviously. Still, one strong opinion plus a few who bag on Foles or several who believe we can win with Smith while hoping to draft for the future is not consensus, but neither does it amount to Smith/Reid being "uncriticizable."

 

I think our board is better than that. I've been on boards that feels like you can't say a good (or conversely, bad) thing about those guys either. This isn't one of them. Disagreements are fine, both ways.

[liquidfriend 1,151]

And this is based on 6 quarters with the starting offense as a Chief?

That's based off his career. Outside of a small stint where he lit it up with 2 amazing receivers against garbage time opponents (Raiders) he's been mediocre to awful.

 

He waa a mediocre passer at Arizona that lived off high percentage throwing. Hm sounds familiar.

 

His mechanics are fairly sloppy and he has no idea how to consistently thread the ball in as a big tall goofy QB. That's why he tends to rocket passes at the most bizarre moments.

 

He's a bit too trusting of his arm and makes bad turnovers at times.

[Okiechief1 425]

My argument against Foles has never been about who is better Smith or Foles. I would just prefer whomever takes over after Smith it be somebody KC drafted and not another retread QB which is what Foles is.

[Bub 20]

Don't rest the starters! We can still win division!

[wilkie 1,518]

We rest them. We are in the playoffs.

[Calichief 3,016]

And this is based on 6 quarters with the starting offense as a Chief?

There a reason he has a stellar year in phi.

[DieHard 2,061]

Foles can really play well, but he doesn't deal well with pressure. We are off and on with protection.

 

Smith: 200 yards 2 TDs and 0 INTs

Foles: 300 yards 3 TDs and 2 INTs

 

Pick your poison.

[azchief21 5,278]

Foles can really play well, but he doesn't deal well with pressure. We are off and on with protection.

 

Smith: 200 yards 2 TDs and 0 INTs

Foles: 300 yards 3 TDs and 2 INTs

 

Pick your poison.

Where did do get those stats? Smith rarely hits 200 yds and Foles doesn't have any interceptions as a Chief.

[DieHard 2,061]

Directly out of my ass. My point is that Smith usually has less yards and less TDs, but also less INTs. It's not really fair to use KC or Rams as Foles measuring stick. You have to look extended play with a decent team. Philly in this case.

 

Foles had 46 TDs, 17 INTs and 250ish yards per game.

 

Smith us typically less yards, less TDs and less INTs.

 

I can't site a source for my prediction of what each QB would do this Sunday against the Chargers. Just my wild ass guess.

[azchief21 5,278]

Directly out of my ass. My point is that Smith usually has less yards and less TDs, but also less INTs. It's not really fair to use KC or Rams as Foles measuring stick. You have to look extended play with a decent team. Philly in this case.

 

Foles had 46 TDs, 17 INTs and 250ish yards per game.

 

Smith us typically less yards, less TDs and less INTs.

 

I can't site a source for my prediction of what each QB would do this Sunday against the Chargers. Just my wild ass guess.

I understand DH, I was just kind of pointing out that Foles hasn't had a real opportunity to gel with all this talent in KC. We know who Smith is with this talent. Is Smith maximizing the talent around him (Kelce)? Minimizing it?(Hill)  Many QBs would love to attack with Hill's speed. When he had talent in Philly, Foles tore it up. 27 TDs & 2 INTs might be one of the best ratios for a season in history. At STL, not so much. As I've said before we need to draft and develop a QBOTF. I'd love to win the Super Bowl with Smith. If we don't, I'd like to draft someone and give Foles a shot next year. We will have given Smith 4 full years.

[wilkie 1,518]

Write down these three words:   WE REST THEM.    Much better in the longrun.

[KCSLC2008 605]

Where did do get those stats? Smith rarely hits 200 yds and Foles doesn't have any interceptions as a Chief.

Rarely? 37/60 as a Chief, (with one being the Colts game he played in half and one being 199 - not included, of course). I think 200 is hardly a stretch. This doesn't include rushes that could be part of the evaluation.

 

Now, Foles got 200 or more in 23/39 starts* (58.97%), which is less than Smith's percentage here (61.67%).

 

*Includes non-starting games where he's thrown over 200.

 

I'm not comparing them directly because counting Foles Rams games would be like counting Smith's Niners games.

 

I'm just saying 200 is not a stretch.

 

I also think saying 2 INTs for Foles is a stretch. But not based on no Chiefs INTs. He should have had one in the Jag game. The point was not whether defenders catch the gimme INTs but rather his play could lead to more INTs and TDs.

[azchief21 5,278]

Rarely? 37/60 as a Chief, (with one being the Colts game he played in half and one being 199 - not included, of course). I think 200 is hardly a stretch. This doesn't include rushes that could be part of the evaluation.

 

Now, Foles got 200 or more in 23/39 starts* (58.97%), which is less than Smith's percentage here (61.67%).

 

*Includes non-starting games where he's thrown over 200.

 

I'm not comparing them directly because counting Foles Rams games would be like counting Smith's Niners games.

 

I'm just saying 200 is not a stretch.

 

I also think saying 2 INTs for Foles is a stretch. But not based on no Chiefs INTs. He should have had one in the Jag game. The point was not whether defenders catch the gimme INTs but rather his play could lead to more INTs and TDs.

Are you a lawyer?

[KCSLC2008 605]

Are you a lawyer?

Why, yes, I am. I don't like generalities, but love details and research. Ironically, that would seem to make me love stats, but not for football. Basketball, yes.

[azchief21 5,278]

Why, yes, I am. I don't like generalities, but love details and research. Ironically, that would seem to make me love stats, but not for football. Basketball, yes.

Stats turn all of us in to politicians. We twist them and cherry pick the ones that help us make our point. Most the time our eyeballs tell us everything we need to know but everybody's eyeballs see a game differently. We all clearly see a Chief's W though!

[Okiechief1 425]

I understand DH, I was just kind of pointing out that Foles hasn't had a real opportunity to gel with all this talent in KC. We know who Smith is with this talent. Is Smith maximizing the talent around him (Kelce)? Minimizing it?(Hill) Many QBs would love to attack with Hill's speed. When he had talent in Philly, Foles tore it up. 27 TDs & 2 INTs might be one of the best ratios for a season in history. At STL, not so much. As I've said before we need to draft and develop a QBOTF. I'd love to win the Super Bowl with Smith. If we don't, I'd like to draft someone and give Foles a shot next year. We will have given Smith 4 full years.

I am all for drafting a QB but I don't really see a purpose in going with Foles for a year while the new guy sits cause if one is taken in the first couple rounds, don't want him sitting longer than a year.

 

The 27 n 2 stretch, how much of that was Foles and how much of that was chip Kelly's system that NFL teams hadn't adjusted to yet. That next year he wasn't as good stat wise in the 8 games he played and when Sanchez took over for him their numbers are almost identical. I think he probably somewhere in between. Not as good as he was in that 27 n 2 stretch, and not as bad as he was with the Rams.

 

To keep this on topic I wouldn't be upset if Andy sat guys but I would play them.

[azchief21 5,278]

I am all for drafting a QB but I don't really see a purpose in going with Foles for a year while the new guy sits cause if one is taken in the first couple rounds, don't want him sitting longer than a year.

 

The 27 n 2 stretch, how much of that was Foles and how much of that was chip Kelly's system that NFL teams hadn't adjusted to yet. That next year he wasn't as good stat wise in the 8 games he played and when Sanchez took over for him their numbers are almost identical. I think he probably somewhere in between. Not as good as he was in that 27 n 2 stretch, and not as bad as he was with the Rams.

 

To keep this on topic I wouldn't be upset if Andy sat guys but I would play them.

I agree. My hope would be we draft a QB that can play right away. If not, I'm for giving Foles a shot next year as a Chief not an Eagle or Ram..... with this talent. Of course if Alex wins the Super Bowl this year he will be my all time favorite QB and he can play as long as he damn well pleases. But if not, he's had a 4 year shot. How much more does a vet need? As to the topic, play them all and try to get the 2nd seed. Would be terrible if we ran out the twos and threes and the Faders lost. Then we're on the road next week.

[KCSLC2008 605]

Stats turn all of us in to politicians. We twist them and cherry pick the ones that help us make our point. Most the time our eyeballs tell us everything we need to know but everybody's eyeballs see a game differently. We all clearly see a Chief's W though!

We can take one stat that is there because of other reasons and misattribute it to some other reason. To say something rarely happens when it's the majority of the time, was my issue when even without looking it up, the "eyeball" of my memory, I knew that wasn't close to true.

 

Now, 300 yard games were more than Smith's but not a good prediction of an expected result if he played. We sit on leads. 2 INTs wasn't a good guess either because Reid's QBs are not TO machines.

[SEMO 6,811]

Stats turn all of us in to politicians. We twist them and cherry pick the ones that help us make our point. Most the time our eyeballs tell us everything we need to know but everybody's eyeballs see a game differently. We all clearly see a Chief's W though!

Yep. A good example is last week. No sacks, but Ford and Hali brought consistent pressure. They both had good games. But, some see 0 sacks and think they were ineffective.

[Calichief 3,016]

Yep. A good example is last week. No sacks, but Ford and Hali brought consistent pressure. They both had good games. But, some see 0 sacks and think they were ineffective.

Pass rush was dominant last week.

[azchief21 5,278]

Yep. A good example is last week. No sacks, but Ford and Hali brought consistent pressure. They both had good games. But, some see 0 sacks and think they were ineffective.

Very good point though you can't beat a strip sack and returning the fumble for 6. 

[DieHard 2,061]

I understand DH, I was just kind of pointing out that Foles hasn't had a real opportunity to gel with all this talent in KC. We know who Smith is with this talent. Is Smith maximizing the talent around him (Kelce)? Minimizing it?(Hill) Many QBs would love to attack with Hill's speed. When he had talent in Philly, Foles tore it up. 27 TDs & 2 INTs might be one of the best ratios for a season in history. At STL, not so much. As I've said before we need to draft and develop a QBOTF. I'd love to win the Super Bowl with Smith. If we don't, I'd like to draft someone and give Foles a shot next year. We will have given Smith 4 full years.

I can't be to hard on Foles for sucking it up in St. Louis. I think in the right situation he can be a stud.