ChiefsPlanet
Page 65 of 88 « First 155561626364 65 6667686975 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs BREAKING: Nick Foles starting against Jags (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=303330)

chiefzilla1501 11-04-2016 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 12528399)
I don't know how many times this needs to be explained. Surely you guys aren't actually this stupid. It's not about wanting a "sexy play" or wanting "fantasy football points".

The threat of downfield passing totally changes the way teams defend the Chiefs. If they have to respect deep passes, they can't key on the run game and short/screen passing game as easily. It's no different than the concept of running the ball to set up play action pass. I get that Clay doesn't necessarily present it that way, and that his machine gun posting style makes it difficult to see past his bullshit and recognize the bigger picture. But a deep passing threat blows this offense wide open, not just in terms of big plays, but also in the effectiveness of all the short high percentage stuff that Andy Reid loves.

Are people being intentionally obtuse? Or do they really not understand this?
Good post. Agreed.

Most aren't asking him to be Aaron Rodgers. The problem is when people justify extremely conservative qb play. If Alex Smith took a few more chances a game, he'd still be a conservative qb who keeps his ints down. Most would be fine with that version of Alex Smith.

Reerun_KC 11-04-2016 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 12528399)
I don't know how many times this needs to be explained. Surely you guys aren't actually this stupid. It's not about wanting a "sexy play" or wanting "fantasy football points".

The threat of downfield passing totally changes the way teams defend the Chiefs. If they have to respect deep passes, they can't key on the run game and short/screen passing game as easily. It's no different than the concept of running the ball to set up play action pass. I get that Clay doesn't necessarily present it that way, and that his machine gun posting style makes it difficult to see past his bullshit and recognize the bigger picture. But a deep passing threat blows this offense wide open, not just in terms of big plays, but also in the effectiveness of all the short high percentage stuff that Andy Reid loves.

Are people being intentionally obtuse? Or do they really not understand this?

:clap:

Reerun_KC 11-04-2016 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW2 (Post 12528409)
They don't understand this. People are so afraid of a turnover because they are used to Smiff playing QB, who doesn't have an "attack" nature and just wants to make a few plays and not **** up. As a result, any turnover when running a conservative attack gets magnified.
And this :clap:

Molitoth 11-04-2016 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 12528399)
I don't know how many times this needs to be explained. Surely you guys aren't actually this stupid. It's not about wanting a "sexy play" or wanting "fantasy football points".

The threat of downfield passing totally changes the way teams defend the Chiefs. If they have to respect deep passes, they can't key on the run game and short/screen passing game as easily. It's no different than the concept of running the ball to set up play action pass. I get that Clay doesn't necessarily present it that way, and that his machine gun posting style makes it difficult to see past his bullshit and recognize the bigger picture. But a deep passing threat blows this offense wide open, not just in terms of big plays, but also in the effectiveness of all the short high percentage stuff that Andy Reid loves.

Are people being intentionally obtuse? Or do they really not understand this?
Thanks for dumbing it down for the people who just can't comprehend it.

Nice post.

Mr. Plow 11-04-2016 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 12528399)
I don't know how many times this needs to be explained. Surely you guys aren't actually this stupid. It's not about wanting a "sexy play" or wanting "fantasy football points".

The threat of downfield passing totally changes the way teams defend the Chiefs. If they have to respect deep passes, they can't key on the run game and short/screen passing game as easily. It's no different than the concept of running the ball to set up play action pass. I get that Clay doesn't necessarily present it that way, and that his machine gun posting style makes it difficult to see past his bullshit and recognize the bigger picture. But a deep passing threat blows this offense wide open, not just in terms of big plays, but also in the effectiveness of all the short high percentage stuff that Andy Reid loves.

Are people being intentionally obtuse? Or do they really not understand this?
Well said. :clap:

DJ's left nut 11-04-2016 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molitoth (Post 12528419)
Thanks for dumbing it down for the people who just can't comprehend it.

Nice post.
And all of you idiots must be illiterate.

Read the ****ing article. It addresses exactly the point Anyong was trying to make.

That author's position is that for a safety to crowd the box, he essentially has to be within 10 yardsish of the LOS or be cheating that way at the snap. You don't have to throw it 40 yards downfield to keep him honest; a simple 20 yarder will accomplish that same thing.

That's why he classifies passes in the 20 yard range as deep passes - precisely because they do exactly what you militantly ignorant mouth-breathers are arguing for. A safety cannot crowd the box if he has to worry about as much as Kelce getting in behind him 18 yards downfield for a catch and run.

And again, Foles actually threw MORE passes near the line of scrimmage than Smith did in that game. You want to talk about plays that get safeties cheating up; an increased really short passes will absolutely do that. All Anyong is saying is read the goddamn article before you sit here saying that Foles is going to be backing safeties off more than Smith - there's a solid argument to be made that he actually won't be based on his small sample size here.

The guy's buying you books and you idiots are eating the pages and then patting each other other the back. Militantly ignorant isn't a good look.

ptlyon 11-04-2016 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 12528434)
And all of you idiots must be illiterate.

Read the ****ing article. It addresses exactly the point Anyong was trying to make.

That author's position is that for a safety to crowd the box, he essentially has to be within 10 yardsish of the LOS or be cheating that way at the snap. You don't have to throw it 40 yards downfield to keep him honest; a simple 20 yarder will accomplish that same thing.

That's why he classifies passes in the 20 yard range as deep passes - precisely because they do exactly what you militantly ignorant mouth-breathers are arguing for. A safety cannot crowd the box if he has to worry about as much as Kelce getting in behind him 18 yards downfield for a catch and run.

And again, Foles actually threw MORE passes near the line of scrimmage than Smith did in that game. You want to talk about plays that get safeties cheating up; an increased really short passes will absolutely do that. All Anyong is saying is read the goddamn article before you sit here saying that Foles is going to be backing safeties off more than Smith - there's a solid argument to be made that he actually won't be based on his small sample size here.

The guy's buying you books and you idiots are eating the pages and then patting each other other the back. Militantly ignorant isn't a good look.
Nice rant, would read again

Rausch 11-04-2016 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 12528434)
That's why he classifies passes in the 20 yard range as deep passes - precisely because they do exactly what you militantly ignorant mouth-breathers are arguing for.
LMAO

ARROW2 11-04-2016 10:27 AM
I don't care what kind of analysis gets posted or stats get posted, THE EYES say otherwise and see a significant difference when BIG STICK NICK is in.

Saccopoo 11-04-2016 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 12528434)
And all of you idiots must be illiterate.

Read the ****ing article. It addresses exactly the point Anyong was trying to make.

That author's position is that for a safety to crowd the box, he essentially has to be within 10 yardsish of the LOS or be cheating that way at the snap. You don't have to throw it 40 yards downfield to keep him honest; a simple 20 yarder will accomplish that same thing.

That's why he classifies passes in the 20 yard range as deep passes - precisely because they do exactly what you militantly ignorant mouth-breathers are arguing for. A safety cannot crowd the box if he has to worry about as much as Kelce getting in behind him 18 yards downfield for a catch and run.

And again, Foles actually threw MORE passes near the line of scrimmage than Smith did in that game. You want to talk about plays that get safeties cheating up; an increased really short passes will absolutely do that. All Anyong is saying is read the goddamn article before you sit here saying that Foles is going to be backing safeties off more than Smith - there's a solid argument to be made that he actually won't be based on his small sample size here.

The guy's buying you books and you idiots are eating the pages and then patting each other other the back. Militantly ignorant isn't a good look.
http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/upload...1373969793.jpg

Reerun_KC 11-04-2016 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 12528434)
And all of you idiots must be illiterate.

Read the ****ing article. It addresses exactly the point Anyong was trying to make.

That author's position is that for a safety to crowd the box, he essentially has to be within 10 yardsish of the LOS or be cheating that way at the snap. You don't have to throw it 40 yards downfield to keep him honest; a simple 20 yarder will accomplish that same thing.

That's why he classifies passes in the 20 yard range as deep passes - precisely because they do exactly what you militantly ignorant mouth-breathers are arguing for. A safety cannot crowd the box if he has to worry about as much as Kelce getting in behind him 18 yards downfield for a catch and run.

And again, Foles actually threw MORE passes near the line of scrimmage than Smith did in that game. You want to talk about plays that get safeties cheating up; an increased really short passes will absolutely do that. All Anyong is saying is read the goddamn article before you sit here saying that Foles is going to be backing safeties off more than Smith - there's a solid argument to be made that he actually won't be based on his small sample size here.

The guy's buying you books and you idiots are eating the pages and then patting each other other the back. Militantly ignorant isn't a good look.

Would read...

jspchief 11-04-2016 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 12528434)
And all of you idiots must be illiterate.

Read the ****ing article. It addresses exactly the point Anyong was trying to make.

That author's position is that for a safety to crowd the box, he essentially has to be within 10 yardsish of the LOS or be cheating that way at the snap. You don't have to throw it 40 yards downfield to keep him honest; a simple 20 yarder will accomplish that same thing.

That's why he classifies passes in the 20 yard range as deep passes - precisely because they do exactly what you militantly ignorant mouth-breathers are arguing for. A safety cannot crowd the box if he has to worry about as much as Kelce getting in behind him 18 yards downfield for a catch and run.

And again, Foles actually threw MORE passes near the line of scrimmage than Smith did in that game. You want to talk about plays that get safeties cheating up; an increased really short passes will absolutely do that. All Anyong is saying is read the goddamn article before you sit here saying that Foles is going to be backing safeties off more than Smith - there's a solid argument to be made that he actually won't be based on his small sample size here.

The guy's buying you books and you idiots are eating the pages and then patting each other other the back. Militantly ignorant isn't a good look.
Except Foles has a larger sample size than a single game that he came in as a backup for. And this topic (and the ridiculous "fantasy football" responses) goes beyond one game and beyond Foles.

ARROW2 11-04-2016 10:29 AM
Sit back and enjoy watching BIG DICK NICK slang dat dick..LOL!!!!!

Saccopoo 11-04-2016 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklandhater (Post 12528139)
Yes Bray is backup

Smith is inactive

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...2/897/doom.jpg

DJ's left nut 11-04-2016 10:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 12528447)
Except Foles has a larger sample size than a single game that he came in as a backup for. And this topic (and the ridiculous "fantasy football" responses) goes beyond one game and beyond Foles.
Nick Foles career AYA (which takes into account depth of target): 7.1
Alex Smith AYA as a Chief: 7.2

I even included your hero's hottest stretch in Philly; the one that really elevated his AYA and is well in his rearview. That sample size of which you speak does NOTHING to indicate that he's going to be backing safeties off more than Smith.

Either you're using a single game or you're ignoring the actual results in favor of picking a 10 game sample in the middle of his career that there is little evidence he's capable of repeating.

Your 'sample size' doesn't support your argument.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:51 PM.
Page 65 of 88 « First 155561626364 65 6667686975 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.