Are 11-6 Chiefs for real?

[OSUViking 505]

Haters gonna hate. Any team that's 7-0 is legit to me.

 

2009 Denver Broncos.

[RazorStar 4,025]

Only went 6-0.

[The Burfict Storm 39]

So who is going to sock it to the Chiefs?

[Bay 2,003]

So who is going to sock it to the Chiefs?

 

I can really only see the Broncos or Colts doing that to them. Even when their offense turns the ball over the Chiefs D never lets things get out of hand.

 

 

Redskins game perhaps a sleeper.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Bay

[56AceInDaPlace 110]

The Chiefs have a good ass defense, love the defense for KC. On offense however, they remind me of us in 08. Except they are passing more and have Bowe lol. Charles is a beast for sure, but overall, their offense isnt scary and i think thats why people are saying they arent forreal. They arent winning with style from their offense. However, they have played who was on their schedule and while i say they got lucky against us, ( bad calls from refs whole game on both sides as well ) they have won every game thus far. I think when they beat a Broncos or high marked team, will people give them more love.

[The Burfict Storm 39]

The Chiefs have a good ass defense, love the defense for KC. On offense however, they remind me of us in 08. Except they are passing more and have Bowe lol. Charles is a beast for sure, but overall, their offense isnt scary and i think thats why people are saying they arent forreal. They arent winning with style from their offense. However, they have played who was on their schedule and while i say they got lucky against us, ( bad calls from refs whole game on both sides as well ) they have won every game thus far. I think when they beat a Broncos or high marked team, will people give them more love.

 

Yeah, even though the Broncos lost, they are still THE highest-powered offense in the league. I guess their own division would be the ones who would give them the toughest time. Them and a team with no ass to defend. With what you said, I think an assless team would give them problems.

[KempBolt 498]

Even if you don't think the Chiefs are "for real," there aren't going to be many chances to be proven correct any time soon. Their next two weeks are the Bills and Browns. Meaning they could get to 9-0 before we really know too much more about them. They end the season with Rivers twice, Manning twice, and Luck. So I guess we'll get to see what they're all about then. But they're in a position to get swept by those teams (not saying it will happen) and still be 11-5. I do think that the Chargers and Broncos could both be in a position to cause their defense some problems they haven't seen yet because they get the ball out so fast. They've neutralized a lot of pass rushers with their quick game. We'll see.

 

And if you are in the camp that thinks they are "for real," I think you still have to admit that they haven't really been tested. The 7 quarterbacks they've faced are Blaine Gabbert, Tony Romo, Michael Vick, Eli Manning, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Terelle Pryor, and Case Keenum. Tony Romo is the only guy they've see that's having a good year, and he had a very nice day against the Chiefs (30/42, 298 yards, 71% completion, 7.1 YPA, 1 TD, 0 INT). But the Chiefs recovered two fumbles and didn't turn the ball over, and won the game.

 

Not really making a point either way here. Just looking at the perspective from either side.

[Maverick 791]

You're all down on the same Alex Smith who was the QB a botched punt and fumble away from versing the Patriots in the Super Bowl two years ago...right?

[KempBolt 498]

You're all down on the same Alex Smith who was the QB a botched punt and fumble away from versing the Patriots in the Super Bowl two years ago...right?

 

 

Yes, the exact same one. I'm all ears if anyone has any valid argument as to why he should be considered a good QB. The only ones I ever hear are the same old fallacies about the success of the overall teams that he's been a part of.

[Thanatos 2,847]

What you still don't get is that that is all the Chiefs need him to do: not turn the ball over. Statistically, Alex Smith was the second most efficient QB in the NFL the year he got benched. All this hate on him is silly. We know he isn't a Peyton Manning. He doesn't need to be.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Thanatos19

[KempBolt 498]

What you still don't get is that that is all the Chiefs need him to do: not turn the ball over. Statistically, Alex Smith was the second most efficient QB in the NFL the year he got benched. All this hate on him is silly. We know he isn't a Peyton Manning. He doesn't need to be.

 

My only point is that his inability may very well come back to bite them against upper echelon teams. Of course we know he isn't Peyton Manning and of course they don't need him to be. That's a worthless point. But the way he's playing this year, he's not even Ryan Tannehill. There are more starting QB's in the league playing better than he is than there are guys who are playing worse.

 

What you still don't get is that a team's winning % is not an indicator of any one individual's success, but rather the result of overall performance. Or else we could all sit here and say that Eric Fisher has been a great right tackle (but any Chiefs fan will tell you that's not true). The fact that the Chiefs can win despite their quarterback does not make their quarterback good.

 

But people tend to do all sorts of mental gymnastics to defend an underwhelming QB on a winning team, or to tear down a good QB on a losing team.

[oochymp 2,393]

I really have no idea where this post is going to go, but I'm interested, so let's see, I think we can all agree that the Chiefs have had a weak schedule, so how much of the Chiefs' defensive performance can be attributed to that? well, the most important stat is points, so that's going to be my focus.

 

Chiefs' opponents average scores v. scores against the Chiefs:

Jacksonville: average - 10.9 against the Chiefs - 2 (8.9 less, 18% of average)

Dallas: average - 28.6 against the Chiefs - 16 (12.6 less, 56% of average)

Philly: average - 24.1 against the Chiefs - 16 (8.1 less, 66% of average)

New York Giants: average - 18 against the Chiefs: 7 (11 less, 39% of average)

Tennessee: average - 20.7 against the Chiefs: 17 (3.7 less, 82% of average)

Oakland: average - 17.5 against the Chiefs: 7 (10.5 less, 40% of average)

Houston: average - 17.4 against the Chiefs: 16 (1 less, 92% of average)

 

so no team has scored more than their season average against the Chiefs this year, opponents have been held more than a touchdown behind their average in five out of seven games against the Chiefs and three opponents have been more than 10 points under their season average, if you look at it overall, teams have scored an average of about 8 points less against the Chiefs than their season average and have only scored about 56% of their average, another point to note is that games against the Chiefs are bringing these teams' average scores down, maybe not by a lot, but it is bringing them down

 

That said, if they keep these numbers up then it stands to reason that the Broncos, who are averaging 42.6 points per game, will still score between 24 points (56% of their average) and 34 points (8 less than their average) the highest totals the Chiefs have had are on the low end of that range, not sure what can be read into this, but it's interesting to look at and has kept me occupied through class

Edited October 22, 2013 by oochymp

[OSUViking 505]

Only went 6-0.

 

I know that, and I'm not saying that will happen to the Chiefs, but record isn't the only determiner of talent.

[Vin+ 3,121]

[BwareDWare94 723]

Andy Reid slo-mo running into the locker room is the greatest gif in the history of gifs.

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

I'm with Kemp on this. The Chiefs are a good team, but I can't say they're a Super Bowl contender still to this point. Depending on their match-up in the playoffs they could easily go one and done. Smith is on one hand keeping them from losing, but on another hand holding them back from being really dominant. I will say though that beyond Bowe, Charles and McCluster they lack weapons. McGrath is solid (was bummed when Chiefs used their waiver order over the Jags to claim him from the Seahawks.)

 

I wouldn't go as far to say he sucks, he's average. But he's only average because he's efficient (includes his running ability) and takes care of the ball. All I know is it hurts my eyes when I watch him play. There's so many plays left on the field. I can't see his defense saving him throughout the playoffs but who knows.

 

Also, the 8 wins or whatever it was the Chiefs had to win for San Francisco to get not one 2nd rounder, but two 2nd rounders is all but certain now — and that's a definite win for the Niners IMO.

Edited October 23, 2013 by CampinWithGoatSampson

[KempBolt 498]

I could agree to calling him "average" considering his running ability. And I likewise think that the 49ers are guilty of grand theft draft picks. The way Alex Smith has played, the Chiefs probably would have been better off to use their 2nd on Geno Smith and keep their 2nd this year. Geno has turned the ball over in New York, but that's mostly a function of being asked to throw downfield (7 of his INT's past 10 yards), which it doesn't seem like he'd be asked to do in KC. He's thrown the ball past 10 yards on 30% of his attempts, versus Smith's 19%.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I still say that Smiith's receivers need to play better. I don't think he's repeatedly missing open guys.

[BJORN 679]

Smith takes care of the ball but so far this year he hasn't been all that efficient.

[KempBolt 498]

I still say that Smiith's receivers need to play better. I don't think he's repeatedly missing open guys.

His top 3 receivers' drop rates:

 

Dwayne Bowe: 0%, obviously tied for the best in the league.

 

Donnie Avery: 2.6%, there are 158 players with a worse drop rate than his.

 

Dexter McCluster: 6.5%, there are 87 players with a worse drop rate than his.

 

If Smith can get a catchable ball to one of his top 3 receivers, chances are very good they haul it in. It's that first part that's unreliable.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

 

You're all down on the same Alex Smith who was the QB a botched punt and fumble away from versing the Patriots in the Super Bowl two years ago...right?

 

 

Yes, the exact same one. I'm all ears if anyone has any valid argument as to why he should be considered a good QB. The only ones I ever hear are the same old fallacies about the success of the overall teams that he's been a part of.

 

 

Without reading any posts below this one, I'll tell you why he's a GOOD quarterback.

 

Alex Smith takes care of the football. Period. That's it. No other reason, there shouldn't be another reason needed really. He's not going to light up the stat sheet, he's not going to make plays that have you saying wow. Can he lead his team on a game winning drive when the team is really in need of it, hell, we don't know! Anyone who watched does know one thing though, he's not going to commit a turnover unless the opposing teams player makes a real good play on the football. Sometimes, that's all you need.

 

You've got guys like Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers (Matt Ryan? )- those are the guys that will go out and win a football game for you. A guy like Alex Smith may not be the deciding factor in a win for the Chiefs, but he's going to do something that often times is more important that winning a football game, he's not going to LOSE a football game for his team. To me, that's just as good as being the guy. Give me a guy who doesn't commit any turnovers, and I'll show you a team behind him with a winning record. It's the definition of a game manager, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

I do think though, if it comes down to a playoff game, Alex Smith can lead the Chiefs down the field. Everyone can say all they want that Smith can't pass down field, but we've seen it at times. He actually HAS thrown the ball more than 20 yards before, and it's not the worst outcome I've ever seen. He's a good solid quarterback.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

 

Sorry, I'm still not completely sold on this team.

 

This pretty much.

 

I have already admitted to being wrong about the Chiefs this year as I thought they'd be a 6-8 win teamand they already have 7 wins. But I'm still not sold.

 

People can say all they want about a 7 win team being legit, but it's still a relatively relevant statement to say they haven't beaten anyone outside of the Cowboys (proven to be inconsistent from week to week) and maybe the Titans.

 

Also, Alex Smith is a game manager at best, and therfore banking on him to be anything special is banking on him to be everything opposite of what he's been for a majority of his career.

Edited October 25, 2013 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[KempBolt 498]

Actually, over the course of his career when Smith attempts downfield throws, he turns the ball over at an alarming rate. The whole "we don't know what would happen" argument doesn't really hold water to me, because we've seen him attempt a lot of vertical passes in the past. Back when he was a turnover machine.

 

I appreciate that he currently does not turn the ball over. But that narrative often fails to mention that since Harbaugh arrived in SF, he's not been asked to do the things that typically lead to turnovers. He's coached to take sacks, throw the ball away, check down, and hit his shorter reads. And they've been able to do that because he's been on teams with good running games and elite defenses. If he did what he does now on the majority of NFL teams, he'd lose. A lot. Just not a good QB in my opinion.

[Attyla the Hawk 197]

Also, Alex Smith is a game manager at best, and therfore banking on him to be anything special is banking on him to be everything opposite of what he's been for a majority of his career.

 

 

Honestly, this is the #1 function of a QB. This league is replete with guys that can't even do that. It's a critically underappreciated quality at the position. So much so, that it's presumed that all QBs can do it, and therefore worse college QBs are picked early based on the notions of 'high ceiling' and 'potential'. Where other QBs succeed in this league who have physical limitations (Dalton, Smith, Eli Manning etc.).

 

Smith is good at what he does. But equally important, is that he knows what he is and doesn't try to be more than that. It's ironic, that San Fransisco jettisoned him for a high ceiling guy -- a move I agreed with. But that they were forced to return to Alex Smith style football after a shaky start because it works.

 

I tend to see a kind of sea change in the NFL in this respect. Teams have known for some time that the NFL is a quarterback league. But teams are finding out that beyond the flash of potent aerial attacks, this league is, and always has been, a hitting league. The NFL is a marathon, not a sprint. Alex Smith is not unlike any other elite prospect in the regard that quality QBs in the postseason are all first and foremost -- game managers.

 

There is no sin in relying on your defense to win games and championships for you. Plenty of great teams were wildly successful with the likes of Phil Simms and Troy Aikman. The Tom Brady who was winning championships did so by doing less as a passer and letting his defense win. Once that organization lost the defense and let Brady go crazy through the air, they've not been able to get a ring since.

[KempBolt 498]

What it comes down to is how you decide whether or not a player is "good." A good team can win with Smith at QB, but I don't believe the 49ers or Chiefs won because of him. More that they just didn't lose because of him. And I generally don't consider a player better than 'average' if he's at about replacement level (i.e., you could replace him with another middle of the road talent and the team's fortunes would not change). I mean, you put Mike Glennon on the Chiefs and what do you have? Probably a 7-0 team. 6-1 at worst. However, you put Alex Smith on the Chargers or Packers and you probably have 1 or 2 win teams because those teams' success are driven by their excellent QB play. And their QB's look good because they are asked to put the team on their backs and they play well. As opposed to being asked just not to screw it up.