Jump to content

Jakuvious

Moderators
  • Content Count

    21,093
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Jakuvious last won the day on October 26 2018

Jakuvious had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,920 All-Pro

About Jakuvious

  • Rank
    Chiefs Mod or Something, I Don't Know

Favorites

  • NFL Team
    Kansas City Chiefs
  • MLB Team
    Kansas City Royals

Other Information

  • Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
  • Job
    Middle Management....for now
  • Xbox/PSN/Steam/Other
    Xbox: Jakuvious

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There's too many bodies if you're thinking Long, a first round pick, Niang, and Remmers all would play OT, in addition to potentially bringing one of the guys back. If you're expecting the first round pick to fight for RT, you also basically have a 4 deep depth chart at RT, at that point with no one going into the season at LT. If we add a vet or take a guy in the first round, they will be the plan at LT. Only way it works, unless the team is unreasonably high on Niang, at this point. Based on the contract, Long just looks like G depth. And upgrade over Wylie behind Thuney and LDT. C
  2. I'm not a big fan of the timeline, for it. In all likelihood, Fisher will miss most of the season. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with just rolling with a stopgap for that long. At that point, I'd rather just get a long term prospect at LT. The possibility I might be comfortable with, would be if the team is confident in Niang at LT, and we roll with Niang at LT and Remmers as a stopgap at RT, and then bring back one of Schwartz/Fisher to replace Remmers, and go with either Fish/Niang or Niang/Schwartz. But that assumes a lot. It only works if the team is really freaking sold on Niang, beca
  3. Does that leave Miller as the last man standing from the '18 draft?
  4. Ah, the good old "no you" rebuttal. Wasn't talking about the Chiefs. But if you really want to, the Chiefs, for the record, will almost certainly regress next year. 14-1 with the starters will almost unquestionably not happen again. So you're not really countering anything with your argument, there. The Pats went 14-2 like twice in the last decade Tom was there. Doesn't happen often. So yeah, we almost certainly won't go 14-2 again. Our W/L total will likely regress. Not really a big deal nor a surprising fact. I have no issue accepting or stating it. To your actual attempt at a point, th
  5. Carr backed up Eli for a few years on the Giants, too.
  6. I know the Saints had a brief overlap of George Rogers and Earl Campbell. Wasn't even a full year, IIRC, though. Because I know they traded for Campbell midseason, and I think it was after that that they dumped Rogers.
  7. A weak strength of schedule and a high rate of victory in close games (both of which are high indicators for year over year regression, for what it's worth.)
  8. Honestly, I have no interest in Orlando Brown. It's such a small chance that he plays up to the contract he is going to demand, IMO. Baltimore is one of those teams that knows what they're doing, and 99% of the time if a player leaves the Ravens, they underperform elsewhere. The Ravens keep the ones that actually deserve the elite money, same as us. I've seen too many Ravens free agents bust elsewhere to buy in, in addition to the fact that he has basically said outright he wants to get paid a ton, and it'll involve a positional change and a new team/system. Too many red flags, for me. And we
  9. This is a mix of terrible logic, poor statistical conclusions, and genuinely deceptive use of statistics. This is like everything I hate about how people use stats incorrectly. The biggest and clearest problem is simply sample size. You only have 50 possible superbowl wins and a sample of 44 QBs. You take any sample of 44 QBs, acquired by similar means, and the success rate will be incredibly low. Only 29 QBs in NFL history have won a superbowl as a starter. That's a tiny chance for success by the chosen measurement. Pick any set of picks, and it's going to look like a terrible success ra
  10. Mahomes took a team friendly structure, sure, but he still got the richest contract ever. Like, he was never not going to get that. When people talk about a team friendly contract, I envision something below their market value, and that's not what Mahomes took.
  11. Honestly, it's never really something that's happened anywhere. Everyone always thinks it will be a thing, but it just never really has been. People jump as soon as one guy signs a lesser deal, but normally it's just because the demand was lower, so they went home. Like, Breeland didn't sign a team friendly deal last year, he just didn't have a market. The whole team friendly thing doesn't exist. Agents will make sure of that.
  12. I mean, two of those games were steamrolls, so we gave more carries to Bell/Washington/Williams/Thompson. Against Carolina, the backs had 9 carries for 22 yards, so it's not like we gave up on some successful thing there. Our RBs actually averaged 4.2 ypc on the year, for what it's worth. The average will always be inflated a bit by Mahomes and Hill. And then that argument winds up getting kind of circular anyways, because part of the efficiency is that we don't run much, so teams don't expect it. Run more, they defend it more, efficiency goes back down. But, I'm not talking statisti
  13. That's who I would lean, here. We really don't draft many unathletic guys with our high picks. We take far more Dee Ford's and Willie Gay's than we take fundamentally sound, high floor but low ceiling, types. Baldwin's issue definitely wasn't athleticism, though. His height/speed/size/vert were all fantastic. Just his agility that lacked. I think his three cone was the big criticism coming out of the combine. But you were drafting him to be a vertical threat anyways. Speaks had a terrible showing in the combine. He had good size, but otherwise was an unathletic tweener in so many bad
  14. DVOA does not work this way. It's normalized based on the specific year, so you can't really use it this way to compare overall quality of QB play across eras. If there is a year where the average QB is terrible, then terrible will be set as the baseline for DVOA at 0%. If there is a year where the average QB plays like 2011 Aaron Rodgers, that will be used as the baseline and will be set at 0% for that season. Comparing the number of QBs over 20% between one year and another doesn't mean there were more good QBs in that one year, it's really just measuring the gap between that group of QBs an
×
×
  • Create New...