Alex Smith 2016

**ctchiefsfan** · 07-14-2016, 05:19 PM

Somewhere today I read a prediction that this season Alex would have just over 4,000 yards passing and just over 400 yards rushing. For a total of about 4,450 total yards. Last year his yards were 3,486 passing, 498 rushing, 3,984 total. So the prediction was for an increase in total yards of about 10% or about 29 yards per game (based on Alex playing all 16 games).

Everybody knows I like Alex and think he is much better than he gets credit for, but my first reaction was..."Alex Smith...almost 4,500 total yards in a season? NO WAY!" But I figured I had better check some stats.

In 2012 (10 games, last year with the 9ers) he had an average of 186.9 combined yards per game. In 2013 (15 games with the Chiefs) he had a combined average of 249.5 yards per game. An increase of 62.6 yards combined per game. And increase of OVER 30%. In 2014 (15 games with the Chiefs) he had a combined average of 234.6 combined yards per game. A decrease of 14.9 combined yards per game. 7%. In 2015 (16 games with the Chiefs) he had a combined average of 249 yards per game. He was basically back to his 2013 averages.

So what is my conclusion? Roughly 250 combined yards per game is basically the Alex Smith "normal" with the Chiefs right now. So the prediction of 281.2 combined yards per game (16 game season--12.5% increase--is a STRETCH).

BUT....Here is the thing in both 2013 and 2015 he had over 400 yards rushing (431 and 498 respectively) but in 2014 he only had 254 yards rushing. And that accounted for most of his decline from 2013. His 2015 passing was 217.9 p/g, 2014 was 217.7 and 2013 was 220.9. So we shouldn't expect a huge increase in passing yards per game unless Reid completely abandons the run. And I think 500 Y/P/G rushing is probably close to his cap.

So IMO it all comes down to how much can the passing game improve? And most of that will be on the receivers and tight ends.

All in all I have a hard time seeing Alex going much over 260 combined yards per game for a total of maybe 4,160 based on a 16 game season. I think that is about his cap barring us having the best O-Line in the NFL.

What do y'all think?

**milkman** · 07-19-2016, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Chiefs4life24

Robinson, Russell, White, Murray, Jones, Mathew's etc will all live up to their potential. Especially Jones he is an absolute monster. He is Poe 2.0 just a little better than Poe

I am not going to debate this with you since you clearly have no concept of the difference between expectation and hope.

**milkman** · 07-19-2016, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by ctchiefsfan

Actually, we do have a bit more than just hope. We have Andy Reid who has a fairly well proven talent for getting the most out of the people on his roster. Yes, Reid has his faults but getting the best from his people is one of the things he does well.

On the subject of unproven players and hope. Hope...and your coach....are really all you have when you bring in a new player. That's true whether discussing a rookie or a free agent star you bring in. The NFL is littered with guys that were stars with a team and then went to another team and did next to nothing. Bowe and a few of our recent free agency losses come to mind. So whether a new person on a team is a rookie or a player with a well-proven track record there are no guarantees of success. But with Reid the chances of success are better than the average.

Whether or not Reid is a difference maker in the development of potential, an entirely different subject of debate, the fact remains that these players are still just potential.

**milkman** · 07-19-2016, 11:10 PM

Oh, and Chris Jones is not a NT.

He will probably get some snaps on the nose in situational packages, but in the base defense, he is a DE.

**Chiefs4life24** · 07-20-2016, 12:16 AM

Oh and you don't have to insult me either, I don't want or need that crap here

**Chiefs4life24** · 07-20-2016, 12:34 AM

Oh and you don't have to insult me either, I don't want or need that crap here

**ctchiefsfan** · 07-20-2016, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by milkman

Whether or not Reid is a difference maker in the development of potential, an entirely different subject of debate, the fact remains that these players are still just potential.

Of course. Every player who is new to a team is hope or potential or whatever you prefer to call it. Rookie or Free Agent same-same. But with Reid as coach the odds are a bit better than they are with many other coaches.

The fact that a player has had success in college or on another team just affects the odds of a player being effective on your team. Reid also affects those odds. No matter how you slice it, every guy that goes to a new team or from college to the NFL is a gamble. Some are more of a gamble than others, but they are all gambles. Gambling is about studying the odds, studying the price of getting into the game and knowing what the upside, downside and mid-side is and then deciding if the risk is worth the price of paying to sit at the table.

Grubbs was a gamble that failed. West and Ware are examples of gambles that paid off. Plenty of examples both ways. But with Reid as a head coach you automatically have bit of an edge over many teams that might be considering the same gamble--especially with the younger players.

I'm not arguing with you, just saying that Reid gives us a bit of an edge on the odds over most teams.

**ctchiefsfan** · 07-20-2016, 12:05 PM

Let's not have anybody insult anybody here. We are after all just fans...not GMs or coaches. If any of us knew half as much as we wish we did then we would be coaches or GMs.

**Chiefs4life24** · 07-20-2016, 09:34 PM

As far as Charles goes, i would like to see us draft Christian Mcaffrey next season

**milkman** · 07-23-2016, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by ctchiefsfan

Let's not have anybody insult anybody here. We are after all just fans...not GMs or coaches. If any of us knew half as much as we wish we did then we would be coaches or GMs.

Not trying to insult.
Simply an observation, and there are times when I wish I were still that naive.