Hapless Bills Fan Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 2 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said: Smith had 70% completion percentage 8 ypa and a 104 QB rating in his last year in SF...........he was already good..........Reid didn't change him into "a totally different person". That's literally the most "efficient" season of his career. What are you calling "efficiency"? Passer rating? Completion %? In SF, Smith was not generating enough offense for the team. He was completing a high percentage of his passes, yes, but his passing yardage was at post-injury low 173 ypg. Not enough offense for a QB who was only generating about 13 ypg rushing. He also only played about half a season so no telling if that efficiency would have stayed high. Reid *did* change Smith's offensive productivity as a QB and not a little. He didn't have as high a QB rating or completion %, but his YPG passing and TDs took an immediate and significant jump. He also started gaining more yards with his feet - from 13 to 29 YPG. His total yards went from 187 to 250 ypg - that's a significant increase, almost 30% more. That first season was a bit of a high, dropped off a bit but never as low as it had been in SF. Quote 5 years into his KC career he had similar efficiency over more games and more pass attempts but the previous 4 years in KC he averaged about 65% completion and a low 90's QBR.......and the next year he had a relatively sharp decline in efficiency. He was what he was when Reid got him. Like I said.........you just don't follow the NFL closely enough and you won't fact check your dubious opinions. It's a bit ironic to be talking about "dubious opinions" and lack of fact checking when promoting the idea that Smith 'was what he was when Reid got him'. If you focus on whatever it is you're calling "efficiency" (by context, seems to be passer rating) OK, but that ignores a lot of things that did change about his game, with measurables seen in the amount of offense he was generating (passing TDs, passing yards, rushing yards; he took more sacks but his sack % dropped from the 2 prev. years in SF etc) I like Smith and living in MO, a lot of people are KC fans so I've followed his career a good bit. He gives a lot of credit to Reid for helping him develop to another level as a QB.
Magox Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, FireChans said: Is that why they traded for Jordan Matthews (cut), KB (cut)? Is that why they traded Dareus, (accelerating his hit) and then turning around and giving Star $40M to replace him? You can’t say these moves were to shed salary and get draft picks when they did never did both. Reread What I wrote again and get back to me Edited December 21, 2019 by Magox
Magox Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: So far we're good. 100% agreement. This, on the other hand, is Wide Right, Wide Left, and short of the mark. The cap talk was a self-induced wound. Period. The context of why Beane and McDermott chose that path (didn't want those players, wanted to accelerate the cap hit) is irrelevant to that point. They chose to shed those players at a time when we would absorb a massive cap hit for it. No one has any trouble understanding what you're SHOUTING ABOUT IN ALL CAPS, but the fact is, they chose to go about shedding players they didn't want in a way and on a timeline that generated massive dead cap. The fact that they had alternatives, and chose to do it because for (*reasons*) they thought it was best, is the very essence of considering something "self-induced" “Wound” is uhhh, not a good description. And the very thought that you characterize my reasons as “irrelevant” is uhhhh, well..... Let’s just say that I disagree and that is putting it mildly. And just because you say “period”, doesn’t make it so. And It wasn’t a wound it was a necessary action from their point of view that was at the very essence and core of their rebuild. They didn’t want those players and some people are having a very hard time getting that very fact. They didn’t want those players. They didn’t see those players as fitting into their plans. It’s not a wound because they Saw the moves as a positive, a positive not just for the long term outlook and of the team but more importantly towards building the locker room culture which was so important for at that time fledgling regime. A critical component to building that culture is buy in from the players and they from my view rightly didn’t think some of those guys fit into their plans. Edited December 21, 2019 by Magox
GunnerBill Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 7 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: To be fair, last year when the cap cupboard was bare, there were a goodly number of people here who did insist that McDermott and Beane had no choice but to blow things up. And those (like myself) who argued that the cap situation was a self-induced wound and that we had alternatives at several points took a lot of flak for that. Exactly. And there are still people arguing that.
billsfan1959 Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, GunnerBill said: I didn't say that and you know full well I didn't. I said looking at any single year is not illuminating. I don't actually know why people are so determined to pretend that the route McDermott and Beane went was the only viable option. I'd have thought they take much more credit from a position that admits there were a number of choices and they have chosen one that has worked out for them. I wanted a rebuild. I support the choice they made. But it was a choice. There were choices. There are always choices. They chose an option that, IMHO, provided an opportunity to truly change the culture (from top to bottom) and to build a team based off a blueprint designed for the team to be a perennial contender. Best choice, without a doubt. Again, IMHO. Edited December 21, 2019 by billsfan1959 1
BADOLBILZ Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 8 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: What are you calling "efficiency"? Passer rating? Completion %? In SF, Smith was not generating enough offense for the team. He was completing a high percentage of his passes, yes, but his passing yardage was at post-injury low 173 ypg. Not enough offense for a QB who was only generating about 13 ypg rushing. He also only played about half a season so no telling if that efficiency would have stayed high. Reid *did* change Smith's offensive productivity as a QB and not a little. He didn't have as high a QB rating or completion %, but his YPG passing and TDs took an immediate and significant jump. He also started gaining more yards with his feet - from 13 to 29 YPG. His total yards went from 187 to 250 ypg - that's a significant increase, almost 30% more. That first season was a bit of a high, dropped off a bit but never as low as it had been in SF. It's a bit ironic to be talking about "dubious opinions" and lack of fact checking when promoting the idea that Smith 'was what he was when Reid got him'. If you focus on whatever it is you're calling "efficiency" (by context, seems to be passer rating) OK, but that ignores a lot of things that did change about his game, with measurables seen in the amount of offense he was generating (passing TDs, passing yards, rushing yards; he took more sacks but his sack % dropped from the 2 prev. years in SF etc) I like Smith and living in MO, a lot of people are KC fans so I've followed his career a good bit. He gives a lot of credit to Reid for helping him develop to another level as a QB. Context. The quote I was responding to was that Reid made him "totally different" than he was in SF. In no way were his efficiency stats radically different than they were in his last year in SF. It was an absurd take which you are just advancing out of spite.
GunnerBill Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 3 hours ago, billsfan1959 said: There were choices. There are always choices. They chose an option that, IMHO, provided an opportunity to truly change the culture (from top to bottom) and to build a team based off a blueprint designed for the team to be a perennial contender. Best choice, without a doubt. Again, IMHO. It was the best choice in my opinion too. But I don't get mad at people who wanted to do it another way. 1
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 On 12/19/2019 at 7:19 AM, CSBill said: Hahaha, I forgot about this epic moment in the Danny O. career. Nonetheless, he does a decent job analyzing things from a QB perspective. ....apologize....couldn't resist.............. 1
Hapless Bills Fan Posted December 21, 2019 Posted December 21, 2019 5 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said: Context. The quote I was responding to was that Reid made him "totally different" than he was in SF. In no way were his efficiency stats radically different than they were in his last year in SF. It was an absurd take which you are just advancing out of spite. I asked you a question: how are you defining efficiency? You did not answer. When someone provides factual information to support their point of view, I think what's absurd is to attribute that viewpoint to "spite". In no way can that be held to enhances football discussion, especially when it's accompanied by ignoring said information and failing to answer a straightforward question. It's a rather stunning ad-hominum, actually I believe Reid did make Smith a different and a better QB. (I tend to shy away from absolute adjectives like "totally"). My belief is rooted in "eyeball test", but the data I provided are objective and factual: YPG passing, TDs, total YPG. Immediate and significant jump first year in KC. When KC brought in some top-notch skill players in 2017 with Hunt and Hill, he not only had the the stats but what I'm guessing you mean by "efficiency", completion % and/or passer rating soared. It's pretty inarguable that completion % and passer rating don't tell the whole tale of a QB's contribution to the offense. At some point, enough offensive yards must be gained and enough points must be scored.
Recommended Posts