Jump to content

Jakuvious

Moderators
  • Content count

    18,079
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Jakuvious last won the day on October 26 2018

Jakuvious had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,568 All-Pro

About Jakuvious

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
  1. So, the 2019 Chiefs...

    Thank you, for this post. The Pats D brought it, against Mahomes. As you would expect. The Ravens did some really nifty things against him as well. I remember that being a big topic of conversation that week. Personally, my stance on the whole argument that Mahomes will struggle now that teams have tape or they can gameplan for him or they can...do whatever people think defenses can do against second year starting QBs that they don't know how to against first year starting QBs. My stance is that if he was able to play effectively against a Bill Belichick coached defense, in the postseason, in a rematch, where the Pats had a standard amount of time to prepare, there's nothing that is going to get thrown against him that he can't handle. Your average NFL team is not going to have some new master gameplan that Belichick wouldn't have come up with. Maybe some team will have the right personnel to screw with him. Peyton struggled against certain defense's year to year. The Steelers used to really screw up Alex Smith big time. But nothing that like, league wide they're suddenly going to figure out how to collectively stop him.
  2. Indianapolis Colts aren't SB Contenders

    Why? Aside from, because you say so. You saying the Chiefs need to win more than one playoff game, but the Chargers don't need to beat the Chiefs more than once, does not make it true. That just makes it something hypocritical that you're saying. You need more proof when it suits you, you live and die by recency bias when it suits you instead. We can't say Mahomes is better than Rivers because it's just been one year, but we can say the Chargers are better than the Chiefs based off of one game. It isn't logical. It's hypocrisy that you can't justify aside from repeating your own opinion that the logic makes sense, because reasons.
  3. So, the 2019 Chiefs...

    We'll dip slightly but not as much as some think, and certainly not for the reasons many seem to think. 10-6 or 11-5, and mostly because it's just hard to maintain what we did last year. Offense gets a little worse, defense gets a little better.
  4. Indianapolis Colts aren't SB Contenders

    You really can't decide what timeframe matters to you. Mahomes needs to prove he can do it more than 1 year. The Chiefs need to win in the playoffs more than just last year. But man, the only Chief/Charger game that means a damn thing to you is the last one. Your argument continues to just be hypocrisy in it's purest form. I mean hey, if you want to really go all in on the recency bias, let's forget everything but the most recent game each team played period. How did the Chargers roster look against the Pats?
  5. Indianapolis Colts aren't SB Contenders

    Almost never repeated, huh? You know that 2018 was the 4th straight year we had a double digit turnover differential in our favor, right? Did it in 2013, too. So 5 out of 6 years under Reid we've had a +11 turnover differential or better. But, it's a fluke that is almost never repeated. EDIT: You also list expected win total, pointing to KC's being lower (10.7) than their actual win total (12. You posted 13, but expected win total doesn't factor in post season scoring, so including the win is...weird.) But every team in football with over 10 wins had a lower expected win total than their actual win total. That's a pretty fundamental point of expected wins. Even the Saints, with their league leading point differential, had an expected win total of 11.2. You've gotta be 2007 Patriots quality to get anything 12 or higher.
  6. Indianapolis Colts aren't SB Contenders

    Stop throwing out Stafford. No one thought Stafford was elite at the time. Dude didn't even make the pro-bowl, let alone win MVP. That comparison is as weak as if I went the other way and said he's basically already 2004 Peyton Manning. The confidence of KC fans, I would say, comes primarily from two things. The fact that we average 11 wins during Reid's tenure, and have been an almost constant playoff presence in that time. And yes, the fact that we have the reigning MVP at QB. Those two things absolutely justify confidence. Every move that has been made by KC this offseason, whether we're talking the positives like adding Clark and Mathieu and Thornhill, or the negatives like losing Houston and Ford and Morse, are less significant than the fact that we have a phenomenal HC and QB duo. And hey, if Mahomes steps back, we made the playoffs in 2017 with the 28th ranked defense and Alex Smith. I trust Reid to make it work if that happens. If we had Goff instead, heck year I'd be just as confident. He had an MVP caliber season last year in his own right.
  7. Indianapolis Colts aren't SB Contenders

    That's exactly the same thing. When he talks about KC and postseason success, he certainly isn't talking about the Alex Smith years. Let alone GrBac or Cassel. It's straight hypocrisy. You're saying KC isn't built for the playoffs because of old struggles, while thinking it's only fair to bring up the last time LAC played KC, because those old games don't matter. They're the same kind of argument, but you're saying one is valid but the other isn't.
  8. Indianapolis Colts aren't SB Contenders

    Yay hypocrisy!
  9. Chiefs acquire LB Darron Lee

    Thinking more on this, one thing I will say, is while I'm skeptical of some of our starters still in the front 7, I feel like our depth on the front 7 has been turned around completely overnight. One of the biggest things I remember from the peak Sutton defenses, is it always seemed like 1 big injury killed the team's momentum. We had like 5 all-pros, but if one of them went down, suddenly we were starting Josh Mauga or Frank Zombo or Phillip Gaines. Our front 7 certainly has less star power than it did a year or two ago, but we can go two deep almost across the board with at least functional players.
  10. Indianapolis Colts aren't SB Contenders

    Really it depends on how you're calculating it. You add in teams like Washington, Jacksonville, and Buffalo as teams more talented than us, but I'm sure even you don't expect those teams to have more successful seasons than us. I would argue our roster, if we go position by position, is less talented than it was in say, 2013, but it's such a QB driven league that having Mahomes makes a huge difference there. The quality of HC we have with Reid also vaults us up there. So maybe we're middle of the pack in overall roster talent, but having an elite QB and a top tier HC tilts the scales dramatically. There have been many years the Pats have not had a top tier team in terms of overall roster talent. Doesn't stop them from being a powerhouse because of the two spots that matter most. Mahomes/Reid isn't that level, but it is a lesser version of it.
  11. Indianapolis Colts aren't SB Contenders

    I think he's probably pointing to the fact that we've had years of the Chargers being declared better and more talented.
  12. Indianapolis Colts aren't SB Contenders

    Over 32 points per game and over 400 yards per game in the 5 regular season games after Hunt. Still 32 points per game and just under 400 yards per game if you throw in the two postseason outings. If we sit at that without Hunt next year, that will make little difference. That's better than in the realm of pretty good. Our offense should fall off a little, just because of regression to the mean, but the reverse will likely occur with the D, and it will even out.
  13. Indianapolis Colts aren't SB Contenders

    To be fair, our DL was the strongest part of our D last year (if you count 3-4 OLB as DL), and it will be again this year. Okafor, Jones, Nnadi, Clark is still a very strong front 4. Not far off the Ford, Jones, Bailey, Houston nickel DL we ran last year. Okafor's spot is a downgrade there, but we did also improve our depth with Ogbah and Saunders, along with Speaks getting some experience. I disagree though that overall our D had better players last year. Edge is probably a slight downgrade. Houston and Ford is probably a little better than Clark, Okafor, and Ogbah. But we've definitely improved at LB. Hitchens gets back to the 4-3 he belongs in, and Lee and Wilson are better off the line LBs than Ragland or Sorensen who effectively played nickel LB for us. CB, we swapped an okay Steven Nelson for an okay Brashaud Breeland. Probably a slight downgrade. But the upgrade going from Ron Parker to Tyrann Mathieu will be substantial. And if Thronhill can add anything at the other spot, that would be even better. Our biggest strength, edge rush, did likely take a step back. But our weakest spots, LB, S, and run defense on the edge, all improved. Our best unit isn't going to be as good on D, most likely, but it will be a much more well-rounded D. This will make it tougher for the teams that wrecked us last year to pick on our obvious weaknesses like what the Pats or even the Steelers did. Offense I'm not concerned about until we know what will actually happen with Hill. Hunt and Morse already missed 4 games each last year and we didn't miss a beat. Williams replaced Hunt's production fine. Austin Reiter did the same for Morse (actually graded out better than Morse per PFF....if we care about that.) I've also just kind of stopped caring about OL turnover with this coaching staff. We've had like 7 seasons worth of losing OL starters and it just not mattering. Albert and Hudson and Asamoah and Allen and Stephenson and Fulton and on and on. Every year we lose a pretty good offensive linemen, they sign for big money we can't afford elsewhere, they wind up busting there (except Hudson) and we replace them with another team's bust or a low round pick and life goes on.
  14. Indianapolis Colts aren't SB Contenders

    We're not. Just part of the rotation. Okafor and Clark will start ahead of him.
  15. Indianapolis Colts aren't SB Contenders

    First of all, this thread isn't about KC. MrOaktown's point was that they were decimated by the Chiefs, which isn't a great sign for them being a legit contender. If KC falls off, there are still other roadblocks that could presumably do what we did to them. If Indy can't score more than one TD against our defense, they're not going to get past LAC or NE either. Second, there's some pretty bad hot takes in here. Yes, we lost Houston and Ford. We also gained Clark, Ogbah, and Okafor. Those pass rush snaps Houston had against Luck don't disappear. Him being gone doesn't mean we instantly sack Luck two less times. It's entirely possible that one of our new rushers could've matched that performance. It's impossible to say one way or another. But it isn't like Houston is some godly irreplaceable pass rusher at this stage of his career. He was a 9 sack guy. Even if you think our new edge rotation will be worse than our old one, and that's a reasonable take, those sacks, those fumbles, those snaps don't just vanish. Mathieu is not a bad safety. He was graded above average by PFF. He was still a strong performer. Is he as elite as he looked at the start of his career? No. But he's effectively replacing Ron Parker in our safety rotation, so it's a huge upgrade regardless. Even if you don't think much of Mathieu, adding him is not reason to justify predicting us to be worth. He's an addition. He's something we didn't have last year. Even if he was mediocre that would still be a gain, not a loss. Hill is TBD. Not going to get to into it, but there is a reason we haven't cut him yet, like we did with Hunt. At this point I think he still winds up playing most of the season for us.
×