He had every opportunity to upgrade both lines during the offseason and trade deadline and didn’t add anything that makes a real difference. Could have had Suh and others but nope… [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
Nah, I gave you my reasons. And I did not say anything about being undefeated. But if u were to go team by team and look at who they beat, what I said, was pretty spot on. So let's do that..
Cardinals. Good? Nope
Bolts. Good? Maybe
Bucs. Good? Nope
Raiders. Good? Nope
Bills - Good team. Good QB. Lost
49'ers - Good team. No QB
Jags. Good? Nope
Titans? Good team. Rookie QB
Bengals -Good Team, good QB. Lost
Like I said, they can beat the bad teams, and the teams with QB issues, but when they play the teams on their level. They are O-2. And the DL not being able to win with four guys rushing, is a big part of the reason, when they play the other Elite QB's So....:-)
The Bengals lost to Mitchell Trubisky and Cooper Rush :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
The Bengals lost to Mitchell Trubisky and Cooper Rush :-)
He's been sucking that Dolphins dick all year and they just lost to Brock Purdy.
He's been a whiny bitch ever since the Chiefs traded Tyreek, and now he's pretending the Chiefs haven't exceeded his and just about everybody else's expectations this year with a tough schedule. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
Nah, I gave you my reasons. And I did not say anything about being undefeated. But if u were to go team by team and look at who they beat, what I said, was pretty spot on. So let's do that..
Cardinals. Good? Nope
Bolts. Good? Maybe
Bucs. Good? Nope
Raiders. Good? Nope
Bills - Good team. Good QB. Lost
49'ers - Good team. No QB
Jags. Good? Nope
Titans? Good team. Rookie QB
Bengals -Good Team, good QB. Lost
Like I said, they can beat the bad teams, and the teams with QB issues, but when they play the teams on their level. They are O-2. And the DL not being able to win with four guys rushing, is a big part of the reason, when they play the other Elite QB's So....:-)
That’s every team. The Bills had a top 3 defense statistically last year and we scored 42 on they ass including dicing them up in 13 seconds.
The Bengals have a top 5 QB and 2 top 10 receivers. Most defenses won’t stop that [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
SF's defense has held basically everybody else under 20 points and several to 10 or less. And I think they have the lowest yardage allowed in the league. If you're getting stellar defense every week, it's easy to forgive one day of getting torched by Mahomes/Reid.
I don't think it's asking too much to expect just a little resistance. Of course, we have to have a little patience with this D due to youth, but right now, it feels like the only way they get a stop vs a good QB is the offense making a mistake.
Again....look at the investments there.
Bosa was what...the 2nd overall pick?
Armstead is a first rounder
They paid Ward
Jimmy Ward was a first rounder
They've got another DL who they took in the first round. They're paying Fred Warner alot of money.
The Chiefs are paying their QB what they're paying him. The 9ers don't have that to deal with. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Again....look at the investments there.
Bosa was what...the 2nd overall pick?
Armstead is a first rounder
They paid Ward
Jimmy Ward was a first rounder
They've got another DL who they took in the first round. They're paying Fred Warner alot of money.
The Chiefs are paying their QB what they're paying him. The 9ers don't have that to deal with.
No disagreement from me.
SF is essentially doing the exact opposite of KC. Their emphasis is on having a great defense, a great running game based not on an individual RB but a scheme that allows Shanahan to pretty much plug-and-play speedy RBs, and at least one really good/great receiver at each level of his offense (RB/TE/WR). This drastically reduces the need to have a great QB. In fact, his offense is predicated around scheme, not great QB play. This is why he's been able to be successful with almost any decent game-manager QB.
When you build a team that way, you don't have to pay a great QB. you have to pay the defensive stars and a couple offensive stars, plus the OL, but you don't have to shell out for the most expensive position in football. That's like $20-$30 million/yr (approx.) that can be spent elsewhere.
KC had Mahomes, so there's no way to work things the way SF has been. Gotta pay Mahomes.
So Andy/Veach have to work it the other way. The offense is based around the QB and (for now) Kelce. Not going to blow huge bucks on a great WR, except when an aging star occasionally becomes available for a run or two, then it's going to be 'C U L8er.' Same defensively. We have CJ; any other star DLs are going to be guys like Suggs, Dunlap, ingram, etc.
This is where some people will shout, "why can't we just draft an elite DE?"
We're picking around 30 or worse for the foreseeable future. Get used to missing out on 98% of the best rookie EDGEs for the next 15+ years.
And it's rinse and repeat the above for great rookie OTs, I'm afraid. We're never going to have a shot at those guys as long as Pat is QB1.
We're going to have to 'make do,' at many of these positions for the next decade plus, so we might as well jump on that wagon now. And honestly, I trhink Veach has done a pretty good job of it so far. Has he missed a couple? Sure. Name me a GM that hasn't.
But he's straight up stolen a few guys as well. And let's not forget, since some people have been tripping about Veach not selecting a 1st rd offensive player in however many years: his full intention was to select Kadarius Toney in last year's draft. So don't give me this BS about how Veach has been neglecting the offense. He had a plan, it's not his fault the NYG fucked it up for him like 30 minutes before he could draft Toney.
Everything is fine. This was always a partial rebuild year on both sides of the ball, and we're a lowly 9-3. Keep your panties on until we get booted out of the playoffs. Then you can bleed out your vags for all the world to see. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tredadda:
Nope. This is a QB driven league. Very rarely do you win it all with an average or below average QB.
Agreed. But it can be done with merely an above-average QB. SF was literally 5 and a half minutes or whatever from doing it in 2019. If SF had met any other AFC team in the 2019 SB, they'd be wearing Rings right now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
The Bengals lost to Mitchell Trubisky and Cooper Rush :-)
Not only those two but Brissett aswell. They've actually played FOUR backup qb's thus year and lost three of those games. Hell they even played Miami when Tua got hurt. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
No disagreement from me.
SF is essentially doing the exact opposite of KC. Their emphasis is on having a great defense, a great running game based not on an individual RB but a scheme that allows Shanahan to pretty much plug-and-play speedy RBs, and at least one really good/great receiver at each level of his offense (RB/TE/WR). This drastically reduces the need to have a great QB. In fact, his offense is predicated around scheme, not great QB play. This is why he's been able to be successful with almost any decent game-manager QB.
When you build a team that way, you don't have to pay a great QB. you have to pay the defensive stars and a couple offensive stars, plus the OL, but you don't have to shell out for the most expensive position in football. That's like $20-$30 million/yr (approx.) that can be spent elsewhere.
KC had Mahomes, so there's no way to work things the way SF has been. Gotta pay Mahomes.
So Andy/Veach have to work it the other way. The offense is based around the QB and (for now) Kelce. Not going to blow huge bucks on a great WR, except when an aging star occasionally becomes available for a run or two, then it's going to be 'C U L8er.' Same defensively. We have CJ; any other star DLs are going to be guys like Suggs, Dunlap, ingram, etc.
This is where some people will shout, "why can't we just draft an elite DE?"
We're picking around 30 or worse for the foreseeable future. Get used to missing out on 98% of the best rookie EDGEs for the next 15+ years.
And it's rinse and repeat the above for great rookie OTs, I'm afraid. We're never going to have a shot at those guys as long as Pat is QB1.
We're going to have to 'make do,' at many of these positions for the next decade plus, so we might as well jump on that wagon now. And honestly, I trhink Veach has done a pretty good job of it so far. Has he missed a couple? Sure. Name me a GM that hasn't.
But he's straight up stolen a few guys as well. And let's not forget, since some people have been tripping about Veach not selecting a 1st rd offensive player in however many years: his full intention was to select Kadarius Toney in last year's draft. So don't give me this BS about how Veach has been neglecting the offense. He had a plan, it's not his fault the NYG fucked it up for him like 30 minutes before he could draft Toney.
Everything is fine. This was always a partial rebuild year on both sides of the ball, and we're a lowly 9-3. Keep your panties on until we get booted out of the playoffs. Then you can bleed out your vags for all the world to see.
Even when Mahomes was dirt cheap, KC still had a very shaky defense behind him because they were overpaying guys like Eric Berry, Justin Houston, Frank Clark, and Anthony Hitchens.
I suppose you could throw Sammy Watkins into this bunch as well, given that he was being paid $16M per year while only playing half the games...essentially his game by game salary was equal to a $32M per year healthy receiver in the days when the highest paid receivers were getting $20M per year.
In terms of paying Mahomes, he has been paid half of Dak Prescott's cash flow in the last 3 years. Dak's cash flow has been $126M compared to $63M for Mahomes over the last 3 seasons. And yet Prescott has a totally loaded roster around him, on both sides of the ball. Great defense, really good OL, two really good RB's, and good receivers too. Dallas has done a good job surrounding him with a ton of talent, despite the fact they have a very expensive quarterback. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DRM08:
Even when Mahomes was dirt cheap, KC still had a very shaky defense behind him because they were overpaying guys like Eric Berry, Justin Houston, Frank Clark, and Anthony Hitchens.
I suppose you could throw Sammy Watkins into this bunch as well, given that he was being paid $16M per year while only playing half the games...essentially his game by game salary was equal to a $32M per year healthy receiver in the days when the highest paid receivers were getting $20M per year.
In terms of paying Mahomes, he has been paid half of Dak Prescott's cash flow in the last 3 years. Dak's cash flow has been $126M compared to $63M for Mahomes over the last 3 seasons. And yet Prescott has a totally loaded roster around him, on both sides of the ball. Great defense, really good OL, two really good RB's, and good receivers too. Dallas has done a good job surrounding him with a ton of talent, despite the fact they have a very expensive quarterback.
Besides Pollard...where did the Cowboys best players come from. [Reply]
Here is the offensive PI that was called. In the past when DEN use to run this. KC would have one corner back off to avoid the pick routes. Chase runs an in route and picks Sneed while Boyd releases on the wheel. With a single safety over top it’s there. #JacobsEyeInTheSkypic.twitter.com/Bb5WVkoV21
Originally Posted by DRM08:
Even when Mahomes was dirt cheap, KC still had a very shaky defense behind him because they were overpaying guys like Eric Berry, Justin Houston, Frank Clark, and Anthony Hitchens.
I suppose you could throw Sammy Watkins into this bunch as well, given that he was being paid $16M per year while only playing half the games...essentially his game by game salary was equal to a $32M per year healthy receiver in the days when the highest paid receivers were getting $20M per year.
In terms of paying Mahomes, he has been paid half of Dak Prescott's cash flow in the last 3 years. Dak's cash flow has been $126M compared to $63M for Mahomes over the last 3 seasons. And yet Prescott has a totally loaded roster around him, on both sides of the ball. Great defense, really good OL, two really good RB's, and good receivers too. Dallas has done a good job surrounding him with a ton of talent, despite the fact they have a very expensive quarterback.
Agree with the first couple paragraphs for the most part. Though, the shitty defense Mahomes inherited wasn't Veach's fault. In large part, that was Sutton's/Dorsey's cross to bear. Spags just tried to make chicken salad out of chickenshit when he got to KC. To his credit, it took him just 12 weeks to turn them into something competitive.
However;
Where has DAL been picking all these years? Don't recall them picking in the 30s for some time now. Lot easier to snag great players when you're perennially picking in the teens.
And here's the thing, and the one time I'll give Sutton/Dorsey a little credit: even without Mahomes, except for one season, Andy was producing double-digit win playoff teams year after year, so KC was always picking from the bottom of the draft barrel, even before Mahomes showed up.
So, it was always harder for them to get great players through the draft than DAL has had it in about two decades, since they were always basically a .500 team, always picking at least in the teens or better.
Put another way, if Veach could have a draft where he was picking in the top 15, do you really think he wouldn't pick some great players? you think he doesn't pick Parsons?
It's just not apples to apples, just sayin'. [Reply]
