Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 12524428)

That's the thing that has me puzzled.

This is the guy they want to crown? The guy is roughly the same age Smith was when Smith got here and those same folks said Smith was too old to develop any further. And sure, cite Foles great initial start with Philly but then try not to ignore Smith's 1+ outstanding season in SF before he got here. And Smith's was more recent in time; it was immediately preceding his trade here; we're 2 full seasons removed from Foles most recent successes.

Foles is every bit the flawed prospect that Smith was upon arrival. But because he likes to throw the ball deep and Clay's a ****ing mouthbreather that thinks that's the only way to win, people are all hot and bothered for the guy.

The odds overwhelmingly suggest that Nick Foles isn't very good. Now, he may be a different brand of mediocre and I guess that's fine, but mediocre is what he almost certainly is.

Bad news folks - If Smith isn't capable of taking the Chiefs to a Super Bowl, Foles isn't either. Nick Foles is no sort of force multiplier and never will be.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 12524452)

Whatever helps you sleep at night, sport.

Alex Smith came into KC with his previous 25 starts over 2 seasons being fringe elite whereas Foles 'development' over his last 19 starts over the 2 immediately preceding seasons was so strong that it got him benched and cut for Case Keenum.

Yeah, the arrow was sure pointing up for Nick Foles...

Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 12524469)

Clay suddenly likes retreads after denying them vehemently for the last 6 years.

Originally Posted by jjchieffan (Post 12524402)

This site should be split into 2:

1. Clay and his band of stats obsessed morons

2. People who actually know a thing or 2 about football.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 12524428)

That's the thing that has me puzzled.

This is the guy they want to crown? The guy is roughly the same age Smith was when Smith got here and those same folks said Smith was too old to develop any further. And sure, cite Foles great initial start with Philly but then try not to ignore Smith's 1+ outstanding season in SF before he got here. And Smith's was more recent in time; it was immediately preceding his trade here; we're 2 full seasons removed from Foles most recent successes.

Foles is every bit the flawed prospect that Smith was upon arrival. But because he likes to throw the ball deep and Clay's a ****ing mouthbreather that thinks that's the only way to win, people are all hot and bothered for the guy.

The odds overwhelmingly suggest that Nick Foles isn't very good. Now, he may be a different brand of mediocre and I guess that's fine, but mediocre is what he almost certainly is.

Bad news folks - If Smith isn't capable of taking the Chiefs to a Super Bowl, Foles isn't either. Nick Foles is no sort of force multiplier and never will be.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 12524452)

Whatever helps you sleep at night, sport.

Alex Smith came into KC with his previous 25 starts over 2 seasons being fringe elite whereas Foles 'development' over his last 19 starts over the 2 immediately preceding seasons was so strong that it got him benched and cut for Case Keenum.

Yeah, the arrow was sure pointing up for Nick Foles...

Originally Posted by TimBone (Post 12524456)

Oh, there was a good joke here regarding you burning down the house....but I'm not gonna start talking shit on kids.

Originally Posted by Easy 6 (Post 12524488)

Jeff Fisher being a ****ing reerun explains much of the Keenum decision

Originally Posted by Mother****erJones (Post 12524505)

Don't forget Andy drafted Foles high. He's just entering his prime so I'm very intrigued.