Originally Posted by Halfcan:
Why would any fan hope that Mahomes has Less yards and TD's? That also could mean Less Wins. :-)
If the defense is better- that means he won't be standing on the sideline 65% of the game while the other team is eating up the clock.
He will get More opportunities, More scoring drives, more everything. Under your scenario- the defense is doing their job- but you are hoping the offense is Less efficient.
Originally Posted by Halfcan:
When Manning set all the records with the Donks- they had the best defense in football- a Championship defense.
Their defense got a lot of sacks and turnovers, 3 and outs and really turned up the heat once they had a lead. They forced teams to abandon their running game to try to keep up on the scoreboard. Manning had More scoring opportunities, not Less.
Same when Brady threw for 50 Td's. The had incredible talent on the Offensive side of the ball- but also had a defense that could make teams go away from what they do best.
Chief's have made a huge effort by the players they have signed on defense- to stop the run. They want to get a lead- make teams one dimensional and force them into mistakes.
Same blueprint as 2 Championship teams when they had unstoppable offenses. Mahomes should get More chances to put up numbers- Not less.
Plus we don't have Barry Word and Okoye back there to run out the clock every time we get up a few scores.
Expecting Mahomes to do worse than last year is simply not probable.
Notice I said "a little".
I think some of you might have forgotten how Andy Reid pulls the offense back when we get a lead in games.
If the D is better we will not be in near as many shoot outs.
Between those two things it is likely that Mahomes stats are not as big as last years. [Reply]
I think Patrick will throw for a little over 5,000 yards.
I'm hoping that KC has enough of a NFL lead that in week 17, against the LA Chargers, Patrick plays kind of like a preseason game and then the backup QB comes in. Either Chad Henne, if he is back from IR, or Matt Moore. [Reply]