Veryoldschool

Let's All Get Behind Alex Smith! Or Not!! (M.E.T.) NO kirk talk---that goes in ATN forum

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

He's not known to throw into tight windows.  He's been in the league since 2005.  There was a year where the KC offense went without a receiving TD to a receiver.  That's insane.  Not throwing 50/50 balls and into tight windows was something that Kirk got killed for (by Gruden) last year.  A huge reason why he had his best year statistically, was because of the separation his receivers were getting.  

Was Smith bad when throwing into tight windows or just didnt throw into tight windows much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

The knock on the "safe & controlled" QB is that they play that way out of necessity and when the game is on the line in the big moments, they are unable to do those extra things that can beat a good defense.    It doesn't mean you can't win a lot of football games with that kind of QB, but people get weary about those kinds of QB's being push out of their comfort zone against a good defense.

Ehhh I kind of view that as a physically limited Quarterback, which clearly Alex Smith is not.

 

I liken it to a PG in basketball who always has the offense set up in the correct play, is able to adequately distribute the ball, maybe doesn't score a ton but rarely turns the ball over. The PG who runs down the floor and makes a dazzling pass, followed by a terrible TO is more flashy and exciting to most. But is that the best guy to run your offense?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest change while we will see an impact from is the lack of turnovers/negative plays in general. The change in field position and not putting your team in bad spots alone will be big.

 

Over the last 3 years as starters:

 

Smith:

Interceptions: 20

Fumbles: 13 potential turnovers/sacks - Lost 7

Total: 33 potential turnovers and 27 actual.

 

Cousins:

Interceptions: 36

Fumbles: 31 potential turnovers/sacks - Lost 17

Total: 67 potential turnovers and 53 actual.

 

Thats a huge difference in turnover numbers and putting your team in bad spots. Just look at the average starting position of our defense vs the Chiefs defense for another example.

 

 

The last time Smith threw more than 8 interceptions was back in 2010 when he threw 10.The last 3 years Kirk has thrown 36 picks, last time he threw less than 11 was when he he started a handful of games. Interceptions are going up, completion percentage is going down.

 

I definitely dont think we are worse off from a QB standpoint in the ability to throw the ball and lead this team. When you subtract the turnovers that Cousins brought its a bigger plus for the offense and mainly the defense.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MisterPinstripe that's good information and I generally agree. 

 

But one thing that concerns me (and I'm pro-Smith) is that Cousins apparently didn't take enough chances for Gruden. That's not even really speculation, they both pretty much confirmed it over the past 2-3 years. 

 

So, will that be something that causes issues? Or, potentially just as bad, will Smith be forced to do things he doesn't feel comfortable doing and ultimately not be successful? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

@MisterPinstripe that's good information and I generally agree. 

 

But one thing that concerns me (and I'm pro-Smith) is that Cousins apparently didn't take enough chances for Gruden. That's not even really speculation, they both pretty much confirmed it over the past 2-3 years. 

 

So, will that be something that causes issues? Or, potentially just as bad, will Smith be forced to do things he doesn't feel comfortable doing and ultimately not be successful? 

I dont think so. Do we really thing our scouts, and especially Gruden, dont know what Smith does best or how he will fit in the offense? They are not coming into this expecting Smith to throw 30+ TDs or to play outside of what he is able. Grudens offense is great at scheming guys open, Smith will have people to throw to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MisterPinstripe said:

I dont think so. Do we really thing our scouts, and especially Gruden, dont know what Smith does best or how he will fit in the offense? They are not coming into this expecting Smith to throw 30+ TDs or to play outside of what he is able. Grudens offense is great at scheming guys open, Smith will have people to throw to.

 

That's what I think/hope also, I'm just trying to make myself look at things cautiously 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also pretty sure that quote from Gruden was in reference to practice wasn't it? Which is why Beat guys claimed they saw more deep balls in one practice than they did all year? That was my take on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Where was that stated? By whom?

 

Did not see this article until today, but the rumor about Reid being behind their collapse in the 2nd half was all around the internet after they lost to the Titans.  Nagy had to come out and say it was him who called the plays in the 2nd half.

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/matt-nagy-kansas-city-chiefs-playoffs-play-calling-andy-reid-ryan-pace

Edited by DJHJR86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

Did not see this article until today, but the rumor about Reid being behind their collapse in the 2nd half was all around the internet after they lost to the Titans.  Nagy had to come out and say it was him who called the plays in the 2nd half.

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/matt-nagy-kansas-city-chiefs-playoffs-play-calling-andy-reid-ryan-pace

 

Reid is still coaching the Chiefs and Smith is with the Skins. Not much more to say, you know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterPinstripe said:

Over the last 3 years as starters:

 

Smith:

Interceptions: 20

Fumbles: 13 potential turnovers/sacks - Lost 7

Total: 33 potential turnovers and 27 actual.

 

Cousins:

Interceptions: 36

Fumbles: 31 potential turnovers/sacks - Lost 17

Total: 67 potential turnovers and 53 actual.

 

What?

 

Smith had 25 total turnovers (INT's and fumbles lost) and Cousins had 47.  Smith was sacked 108 times, Cousins 90.  Smith had 69 total touchdowns, while Cousins had 94.  When you factor in the attempts, (Cousins had 1689 to Smith's 1464), yes Cousins turned the ball over.  But he definitely scored a considerable amount more over the course of 3 years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think you got some people if I combined it to twitter with really different views on Alex and especially in relation to the Kirk.  And they are all over the map.  And the reason why Kirk to me is relevant is its a barometer of past offenses here versus impending offenses.

 

I'd sum up all the views I've noticed this way.

 

A. Alex is a stud.  He throws deep well, he throws short, he runs.  He's smart.  He's a leader.  He just wins.  Just joking here for effect but the dude is like Maverick from Top Gun -- our new hero.   

 

 

 

 

B.  Alex may not be a stud but he's easily better than Kirk.  Backed with the underpinning of a narrative that since KC won games that must be because Alex is a money QB who makes plays when it counts.  Third down and red zone magic. Or the more moderate version of this narrative of he's at least better at all of that than what we had.

 

C.  National observers -- Alex and Kirk are close but Alex is the better QB because he makes plays with his legs and he's peaking at 34.   Some make this point very loudly.

 

D.  National observers -- Kirk is better.  Kirk had to do more with less.  He's younger, has the stronger arm and is emerging.  And some make this point very loudly. 

 

E.  They are more or less the same QB.   They are on the conservative side -- not elite but somewhere between good or very good.  You can split hairs about the differences -- Kirk had more of a burden to throw the ball with no run game to keep defenses off balance and did well regardless.  Alex is the dude who can make plays with his legs and is less inclined to make a turnover.    More national people land on this point than picking one over the other.  And did the Redskins make out better or worse?  That remains to be seen.  You got Alex cheaper (good) but you also got an older QB (bad).  Lets see what happens.

 

 

For me personally.  I think A and B are ridiculous (unless its just about fun off season homerism) and those ideas aren't really echoed by the people who covered him in KC or those who are football nerd types like the Football Outsiders and PFF guys.   As for C or D -- I get that a little more.  I am more in the D camp but I got no problem with C because it doesn't strike me as a wild position.   I am probably a mix between D and E but more E. 

 

I do think the inflated love fest for Alex which I see a lot on Twitter isn't going to help him in the long run. Better to under promise and over deliver.   I agree with those saying, hey do you need a dynamic world beater type at QB to win games -- won't a good and efficient QB do plenty?  I agree you can win with a good QB if they have a really good supporting cast.  I am never going to subscribe to the idea that a QB is just a winner like its basketball or tennis or golf -- unless there is a strong association with said QB for being clutch and that's not really been Alex's rep -- his KC media guys expounded on that plenty.   But I think Alex is plenty good enough to be a winner if he has a good cast around him.    I am sticking to Alex has a really good year if Guice is a stud and Reed stays healthy and or Doctson emerges.

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

D.  National observers -- Kirk is better.  Kirk had to do more with less.  He's younger, has the stronger arm and is emerging.  And some make this point very loudly. 

 

This is where I'm at. 

 

But I don't think you cannot win with Alex Smith.  The safe, yet effective QB can help win games.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

This is where I'm at. 

 

But I don't think you cannot win with Alex Smith.  The safe, yet effective QB can help win games.  

 

I get that position.  I'd go Kirk over Alex myself.  I am not sure though one is a mile better than the other.  I'd rather have Kirk largely because of the age difference.  But I think Alex will end up playing well in Jay system and I think his supporting cast here will be better than what the Redskins had cooking in 2017.  Guice > Perine.  Richardson > Pryor.  And hopefully Doctson emerges and Reed gets healthy.

 

The whole QB is a winner stuff gets me -- was Drew Brees a loser when he was 7-9 three years in a row?  And just by coincidence became a winner again when Kamara came on board and their defense improved.    It's a team game.   There might be something to an elite QB can ascend a team with a weak supporting cast (though there are stats that dispute that at times, too) or a QB who is terrible is going to drag a team down.   But when it comes to QBs who are in the good category IMO you got to surround them with really good players and you can win.  And that's not a criticism -- its not easy to be a good QB -- I don't think a crappy QB can win with a good supporting cast. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

What?

 

Smith had 25 total turnovers (INT's and fumbles lost) and Cousins had 47.  Smith was sacked 108 times, Cousins 90.  Smith had 69 total touchdowns, while Cousins had 94.  When you factor in the attempts, (Cousins had 1689 to Smith's 1464), yes Cousins turned the ball over.  But he definitely scored a considerable amount more over the course of 3 years.

I'm not even talking about TDs, which are obviously important. I think turnovers are just as important as they also put your D and team in bad spots. It's a fact that Cousins turns the ball over twice as much as Smith, and fumbles a ton.

 

Not sure where you got your numbers, I counted all of those up via PFF stats pages, what am I missing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

What?

 

Smith had 25 total turnovers (INT's and fumbles lost) and Cousins had 47.  Smith was sacked 108 times, Cousins 90.  Smith had 69 total touchdowns, while Cousins had 94.  When you factor in the attempts, (Cousins had 1689 to Smith's 1464), yes Cousins turned the ball over.  But he definitely scored a considerable amount more over the course of 3 years.

Yeah, there’s so much nuance to it that I’m hesitant to put too much weight into all of the stats.  You could argue various stats all day to back up your argument (the general your, not directed at you specifically).

 

Cousins had a pretty atrocious oline last year and poor receivers... not surprising his sacks went up a great deal.  Smith had his best receiving weapons and had a career year.  We could go back and look at Smith’s first 3 years for a more apt comparison between the two, but you’d still have to break down their supporting casts and what they were asked to do within the scheme.  

 

The bottom line for me is that we lost one good qb and added one.  They have their similarities and differences.  Both showed flashes of top 5 play/metrics, but both probably fall in that 5-15 range.  One could argue one or the other is better, but they’re close.  

 

So, if we have improved the rest of the team, which we seem to have done, we should have a legit shot at making the playoffs and maybe more.  

We’ll see how it plays out.   

 

My guess is the yardage, tds and turnovers dip a bit, and sacks, rushing yards and wins (which will likely be due to a better overall team) go up a bit.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I feel is that we didn’t exactly lose a QB that makes stuff happen like Brady and Rodgers do. Specially with the money Cousins was asking and didn’t seem to want to stay with the Redskins. I’m excited to see what Smith does in this offense and everyone staying healthy for the season. Hopefully he keeps playing like he did last season. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The whole QB is a winner stuff gets me -- was Drew Brees a loser when he was 7-9 three years in a row?  And just by coincidence became a winner again when Kamara came on board and their defense improved.    It's a team game.   

 

It's funny you bring up Brees, because since 2005, both he and Alex Smith have a near identical winning percentage as a starter.  And no one in their right mind (if age wasn't a factor) would take Smith over Brees.  Which goes to show you that winning is not a measurable QB stat.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Napredskins1 said:

The way I feel is that we didn’t exactly lose a QB that makes stuff happen like Brady and Rodgers do. Specially with the money Cousins was asking and didn’t seem to want to stay with the Redskins. I’m excited to see what Smith does in this offense and everyone staying healthy for the season. Hopefully he keeps playing like he did last season. 

 

This is kind of where I am. I liked Kirk, i was never convinced by Kirk - In the UK I don't get to go to many live games. But in 2016 i went to the international game and i came away impressed with Jordan Reed but really on the fence with Kirk and a friend i had with me (who is a giants fan - but never disses the Skins - definitely not to the level by Skins fans on here)  echoed my feelings - Kirk is - functional - not franchise;. 

 

I still cannot get away from my feeling Kirk - like Andy Dalton - is/was a product of the system and the Jay Gruden environment - and my thought is if Gruden can make guys like Andy Dalton look good (he didn't in the London game in 2016 and that was when he was throwing  A.J Green) I do wonder what he can do with a guy like Alex Smith ...  . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bedlamVR The saying functional - not franchise for me sums up exactly what Alex Smith is.  My only hope is that he remains functional for 3 years.  I'm under no illusion that Jay Gruden, for as much as I like him, is going to hit Alex's next gear at 34.  It's possible, but I look to the supporting cast to make the most difference in where this team ends up going.  He's got what we assume will be more healthy bodies and better players than last year's team so no excuses when the bullets start flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The systems-schemes QB drill. I never really got.  Both Alex and Kirk have been hit by this label depending on the source.  Here is a case where Alex is being picked on in that department.  I do agree that some coaches have good systems.  I would say Andy Reid is a case in point, Jay Gruden is likewise a case in point.  But can just any bum throw well in a good system? I don't think so.  To operate in a system you need to be smart among other things and get the system and you need to be efficient to operate in it.  Would Joe Montana be considered a system QB because he operated Wash's WCO so efficiently?

 

Tough review of #Redskins offense from an “anonymous scout” via @theMMQB

More
DhnxiTmUcAA58tN.jpg

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

@bedlamVR The saying functional - not franchise for me sums up exactly what Alex Smith is.  My only hope is that he remains functional for 3 years.  I'm under no illusion that Jay Gruden, for as much as I like him, is going to hit Alex's next gear at 34.  It's possible, but I look to the supporting cast to make the most difference in where this team ends up going.  He's got what we assume will be more healthy bodies and better players than last year's team so no excuses when the bullets start flying.

 

Not to get too caught up with Guice -- am afraid I am jinxing him :)  but I think he looms big in Alex's year.  Going back to my Brees example -- a loser 7-9 bum for three seasons in a row or a big winner last year -- will the real Drew Brees stand up?  Well, to me the real Drew Brees has always been great but couldn't win with a porous defense and without that stud running back.  Enter Kamara.   Alex -- career year -- enter K. Hunt, T. Hill.    Here I think if Guice becomes another Elliot type this offense should be explosive and Alex will do his part.  

 

Like you I love Jay's offensive mind and his system.  But Andy Reid isn't exactly a bum in that department.  And two of Alex's offensive coordinators were given in recent years head coaching jobs, one of which just won the Superbowl.  So Alex I think had plenty of great minds helping him in KC.   What I am looking forward the most with Alex is the running game -- how Alex himself is a weapon on the ground, then kick in Thompson, then kick in Guice -- it could have some shades of 2012.  I am definitely not in the camp that Alex is a better passer than Kirk.  I think Kirk has the better arm/passing ability.  But I am interested to see if all the new moving parts -- Alex-Guice -- and the new scheme gets our run game off the ground.  That's been the one missing component of Jay's offense.  So I think Alex will help improve the run game.  Will see.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Not to get too caught up with Guice -- am afraid I am jinxing him :) 

I totally understand that, but that's kind of how it feels about the Alex Smith love around here as well.  They hype is too eerily similar to ghosts of quarterbacks past around here that I can't help but to be cautious.  But I do feel like one really helps the other, that if Guice ends up being the real deal - it should reap rewards for Smith as well.  It's a package deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

Did not see this article until today, but the rumor about Reid being behind their collapse in the 2nd half was all around the internet after they lost to the Titans.  Nagy had to come out and say it was him who called the plays in the 2nd half.

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/matt-nagy-kansas-city-chiefs-playoffs-play-calling-andy-reid-ryan-pace

 

Oh OK. I thought you meant pro-Smith people on this board were touting Smith's regular season record but dismissing his playoff record. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I totally understand that, but that's kind of how it feels about the Alex Smith love around here as well.  They hype is too eerily similar to ghosts of quarterbacks past around here that I can't help but to be cautious.  But I do feel like one really helps the other, that if Guice ends up being the real deal - it should reap rewards for Smith as well.  It's a package deal.

 

That's a good way to put it.  The way I feel about Guice, some feel (especially on twitter) about Alex.  :)  Yeah I think Guice is a stud.  As for Alex, I actually like him -- don't love him but I do like him.  And to me that's a big deal with QBs.  Most Qbs are either just bad or just guys.  I didn't want Colt to replace Kirk because for me, he's just a guy.  Alex to me is good.  And I think you have a shot to win with good. 

 

But I think we are setting him up for a let down if people describe him as great -- or factor any angst they have about Kirk as part of the equation with him.  I do think Kirk is relative to the debate -- heck we are comparing the past to the future so the tit for tat is on point -- and that's why just about every NFL observer after another does the comparison, too.  Keim was just joking about it on air -- saying it goes from one guy saying Alex is better and another guy saying Kirk is better.   It's a polarizing debate and there doesn't seem to be a consensus on it.

 

I get those who say if the two QBs end up similar then the Redskins win out because of Alex's price versus Kirk.  But to me that's a depends argument since that also centers on the longevity of both guys -- and that's leaving out the idea that they could have gotten Kirk at the same price or better years back.   But yeah if Alex is reaching his prime at 34 and has a run like a Brady or Brees where he stays the same until his late 30s -- then great trade.  If he ends up like the last two 34 year old QBs they acquired (considering they had a younger QB in the fold) then the deal IMO is a disaster.   So to me it needs to play out.  If Alex was 30 years old, I'd have liked the trade -- its that simple for me.  But he's 34.

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

It's funny you bring up Brees, because since 2005, both he and Alex Smith have a near identical winning percentage as a starter.  And no one in their right mind (if age wasn't a factor) would take Smith over Brees.  Which goes to show you that winning is not a measurable QB stat.  

Sure it is, but just like every stat its about context. No stat actually tells the whole story. Heck, interception stats dont take into account how many passes that should have been picked were dropped. Or how many interceptions were actually the receivers fault and not the QBs.

4 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I totally understand that, but that's kind of how it feels about the Alex Smith love around here as well.  They hype is too eerily similar to ghosts of quarterbacks past around here that I can't help but to be cautious.  But I do feel like one really helps the other, that if Guice ends up being the real deal - it should reap rewards for Smith as well.  It's a package deal.

It feels like "Alex Smith love" means not being negative about Smith, not specifically calling you out just the feel I get from many posters on this topic. I dont think I have seen anyone touting him as the next coming, or that hes going to tear up the league. Seems like most people see him as comparable to Cousins but protects the ball much better, not a downgrade and cheaper. Plus Kirk didnt want to be here, so good riddance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.