FireChan Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 (edited) Winner of what? He's okay, but nothing great. I'd rather keep Tyrod. He's made the playoffs 5 out of his 6 last seasons. What? Edited February 4, 2017 by FireChan
purple haze Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 That's kind of the point. He isn't an upgrade. There is NO reason to make a lateral (at best) move.This is where I am too. And as much as we need better play at the QB spot, outside of Romo there isn't a guy available who strikes me as a definite better option than Tyrod, and Romo is one hit away from a third straight trip to the IR or even retirement (although he's a gamble I would still take).He's made the playoffs 5 out of his 6 last seasons. What? His team has made the playoffs. You talk as if he's Brady or Rogers or Brees lifting them to heights unknown. You put TT on that team, with that coach, that D, they are still in the playoffs. Smith is not that hot.
FireChan Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 This is where I am too. And as much as we need better play at the QB spot, outside of Romo there isn't a guy available who strikes me as a definite better option than Tyrod, and Romo is one hit away from a third straight trip to the IR or even retirement (although he's a gamble I would still take). His team has made the playoffs. You talk as if he's Brady or Rogers or Brees lifting them to heights unknown. You put TT on that team, with that coach, that D, they are still in the playoffs. Smith is not that hot. You can't prove it.
Buffalo_Stampede Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 Smith is a winner. Can't teach that.only with a top scoring defense. Tyrod has a winning career record with a below average scoring defense.
purple haze Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 You can't prove it. LoL. Watch the games. That's all the proof you need unless you have an agenda.
FireChan Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 LoL. Watch the games. That's all the proof you need unless you have an agenda. I watched TT lose 14 games in the last two years. How many did Smith lose?
purple haze Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 (edited) I watched TT lose 14 games in the last two years. How many did Smith lose?You keep ignoring the team aspect of the game. I live out west. I see the Chiefs often. Smith is okay. I am not saying he is bad. If he were the Bills QB I wouldn't cry about it. But I would be the first to tell you if the Bills D plays like they did under Rex, and our FG kicker stays unreliable, the Bills still won't be in the playoffs. Smith ain't going to do a Ryan, Rogers, Brady Brees impression and make that type of difference. Smith is not the difference maker for the Chiefs and that is by design. Smith and TT are in the same QB bin. I'll take the much younger one with an ability to do things other QBs cannot do. Edited February 4, 2017 by purple haze
BADOLBILZ Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 I'd rather pay TT than Smith. The comparison has been done one here multiple times. Their production and style are very similar. TT still has a chance to improve and has more natural ability. Smith has started a lot of games at this point and is older as well. They are both game managers but TT is capable of making plays that Alex Smith isn't. The Bills have solid talent but the Chiefs are better coached and have better personnel, mostly by virtue of finding more playmakers in the draft.........people who think that Smith would have gotten last years or next years possibly talent-diminished Bills team to the playoffs simply because he did it in SF and KC are probably not taking that into account.
purple haze Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 The Bills have solid talent but the Chiefs are better coached and have better personnel, mostly by virtue of finding more playmakers in the draft.........people who think that Smith would have gotten last years or next years possibly talent-diminished Bills team to the playoffs simply because he did it in SF and KC are probably not taking that into account. I think the Bills talent is commensurate with the Chiefs. That coaching makes all the difference though. Reid's teams are death-and-taxes consistent. As you stated, with the way the D performed last year if Smith were the QB the Bills would still have been sitting at home, no doubt about it.
FireChan Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 (edited) You keep ignoring the team aspect of the game. I live out west. I see the Chiefs often. Smith is okay. I am not saying he is bad. If he were the Bills QB I wouldn't cry about it. But I would be the first to tell you if the Bills D plays like they did under Rex, and our FG kicker stays unreliable, the Bills still won't be in the playoffs. Smith ain't going to do a Ryan, Rogers, Brady Brees impression and make that type of difference. Smith is not the difference maker for the Chiefs and that is by design. Smith and TT are in the same QB bin. I'll take the much younger one with an ability to do things other QBs cannot do. Except win more than 8 games. TT's a little lacking in that department. Edited February 4, 2017 by FireChan
John from Riverside Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 Except win more than 8 games. TT's a little lacking in that department. wins are a team stat
Doc Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 The Chiefs would have killed the Steelers with Romo fwiw. I disagree. Romo hasn't been clutch in the playoffs.
FireChan Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 wins are a team stat Are they? Is that why Pro Football Reference tracks every single QB since the 60's records as starters? The QB dictates wins and losses moreso than any other position. Hockey is a team sport too, but goalies still are tracked with the W-L because of how instrumental they are to that stat. It's time to be honest with ourselves.
Kirby Jackson Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 Are they? Is that why Pro Football Reference tracks every single QB since the 60's records as starters? The QB dictates wins and losses moreso than any other position. Hockey is a team sport too, but goalies still are tracked with the W-L because of how instrumental they are to that stat. It's time to be honest with ourselves. So you believe Alex Smith is better than Drew Brees? He wins more. We can't know if Brees was on KC if they'd be better. I watched TT lose 14 games in the last two years. How many did Smith lose?I watched Brees lose 17 over the last 2 years.
FireChan Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 So you believe Alex Smith is better than Drew Brees? He wins more. We can't know if Brees was on KC if they'd be better. No. Their win% is about the same. I think you could argue, successfully, that the Saints are a 0-16 caliber team without Brees. He's good for +7 wins. The Chiefs, without Smith, are probably closer in that 6-7 win category. He's +5. The Bills without TT are also probably in that 6-7 win category. He's +2. Teams matter and I've never intimated otherwise. TT with the 2014 defense probably sneaks into the playoffs given enough chances. But if you don't think that win% matters more based on the QB than anybody else, I don't know what to say. I disagree. Romo hasn't been clutch in the playoffs. Romo had a 4Q comeback and GWD last time he was in the playoffs.
Kirby Jackson Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 (edited) No. Their win% is about the same. I think you could argue, successfully, that the Saints are a 0-16 caliber team without Brees. He's good for +7 wins. The Chiefs, without Smith, are probably closer in that 6-7 win category. He's +5. The Bills without TT are also probably in that 6-7 win category. He's +2. Teams matter and I've never intimated otherwise. TT with the 2014 defense probably sneaks into the playoffs given enough chances. But if you don't think that win% matters more based on the QB than anybody else, I don't know what to say. Nope, those are moving goal posts my friend. If you want to use win percentage then use win percentage in all cases. You can't be selective. You said that you "saw Tyrod lose 14 games over the last 2 years." I said "I saw Brees lose 17 games over the last 2 years." You either factor in the teams (reasonable) or not. You can't pick and choose when to apply that criteria. Then you make up some arbitrary numbers like Smith is 3 more wins to the Chiefs than Tyrod to the Bills despite their stats being virtually identical? How are rationalizing this other than "that's what fits the story that I am trying to tell?" I think that you are a good poster but you should probably bow out on this one or present some evidence. If you want to say "wins belong to QBs" then losses to do. If you want to be rational and realize that wins and losses are a team stat, your whole point about Alex Smith winning goes out the window. It can't be both. Edited February 4, 2017 by Kirby Jackson
John from Riverside Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 Are they? Is that why Pro Football Reference tracks every single QB since the 60's records as starters? The QB dictates wins and losses moreso than any other position. Hockey is a team sport too, but goalies still are tracked with the W-L because of how instrumental they are to that stat. It's time to be honest with ourselves. so tired of explaining this over and over The qb IS the most important position on the field for any one player however the identity of the bills over the last several years has been - Dominant D - Strong running game - Limit turnovers NOT winning shootouts between qbs and we just hired yet another DC for HC and a OC from denver so expect the same so DONT expect the bills to become is QB passing juggernaut which is also why TT is probably coming back
BADOLBILZ Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 No. Their win% is about the same. I think you could argue, successfully, that the Saints are a 0-16 caliber team without Brees. He's good for +7 wins. The Chiefs, without Smith, are probably closer in that 6-7 win category. He's +5. The Bills without TT are also probably in that 6-7 win category. He's +2. Teams matter and I've never intimated otherwise. TT with the 2014 defense probably sneaks into the playoffs given enough chances. But if you don't think that win% matters more based on the QB than anybody else, I don't know what to say. Romo had a 4Q comeback and GWD last time he was in the playoffs. I think over the past 6 seasons no QB in the NFL has had as much talent on his rosters as Alex Smith. And keep in mind he was 19-31 in his first 5 seasons and couldn't hold a starting job despite being the first overall pick in the draft. Tyrod had a winning record in year 5 of his career......his first as a starter.......while Alex Smith was 3-7 in his fifth crack at the starting job in SF. Tyrod hasn't had an opportunity to lose to less talented teams.....or simply as home favorites.........in the playoffs the way Smith has on a number of occasions but I put that more on the coaching than Tyrod.
FireChan Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 so tired of explaining this over and over The qb IS the most important position on the field for any one player however the identity of the bills over the last several years has been - Dominant D - Strong running game - Limit turnovers NOT winning shootouts between qbs and we just hired yet another DC for HC and a OC from denver so expect the same so DONT expect the bills to become is QB passing juggernaut which is also why TT is probably coming back Not sure what you're trying to say here.
/dev/null Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 i'm not sure Romo represents a big enough improvement for the Chiefs to merit the Cowboys price tag. But if they go that route, I'd be interested in Smith if they cut him. Not sure I'd trade for Smith If this Romo to the Chiefs rumor has legs, I want to see it develop into the long forgotten art of the 3 way trade
Recommended Posts