Jakuvious

Didn't think we'd pull it off. Damn.

So, not what I would call a promising development.

Don't tell me how to do my job. Though, yeah, fair enough.

Then why are you here? Maybe forums aren't for you if you think there's no point to backing up opinions.

This does not counter any of the literal physical evidence that counters your take. Your take is bad because we have actual, clear evidence, that it is wrong. If you want to be proud of trying to be right about a technicality, more power to you. But the team outscored Denver 20-0 with Moore in, then went 1-1 against two playoff teams. Hell, they were also perennial playoff contenders prior to Mahomes. So yeah, I think they'd still be a good team if Mahomes goes down to injury. The burden is on you to argue why they wouldn't be, given that history shows otherwise, and you have failed to provide any ability to do so.

2-1. And I already explained in a post you barely responded to. Your take is that they'd be bad without Mahomes. They were not. Your take is that they'd be really bad without Mahomes and Jones. They were not. You've now pivoted to, well, they'd be really bad because it's Henne instead of Matt Moore. Which is wrong, in the first place, and just a bad take, in the second.

He's on roster. Resigned a few days ago. And if the gap between Moore and Henne (or Henne and Ta'Amu, since you seem to think he'd be fine) is that big of a deal in your evaluation of our roster anyways, I'd say there's still a problem with your take there.

We still have Matt Moore... This is basically the same roster as last year. Almost entirely. It is literally the same QB depth chart that we had last year. If your argument is that the roster has now become less capable, you're going to need to offer way more information than what you have so far.

2-1. We barely had Pat against Denver. Score was 10-7 when Moore went in. 3 quarters left to play. As for 5-1, I don't know. Depends on the stretch of schedule. But that's not the argument. You said the Chiefs would be bad without Mahomes. They were not. We went 2-1 without. 1-1 against playoff teams. Played Green Bay real close. Pretty sure it was a 1 score game in the end. You also said they'd be really bad without Mahomes and Jones. Well, Jones missed 2 of those games as well. So they were not really bad in that scenario either. They went 1-1 in those two games. He came back against Minnesota. Bridgewater is also a better QB than either team has as a backup now, for the record. I think it more likely the Chiefs go 5-1 with Bridgewater than with Moore. I also don't think the Saints go 5-1 with Winston instead. Mistake prone backups aren't ideal. Lead to more volatility, less consistency. Bridgewater was a good placeholder, same as Moore. Didn't screw up what the rest of the roster was able to do. Regardless, point stands. You said they'd be bad without Mahomes, they weren't. You said they'd be really bad without Mahomes and Jones, and they weren't. And this thread is about the entire roster, so fortunately, it still includes those two players anyway.

On a play that Mahomes himself called, that required an enormous play on his own part, still. Even if we want to talk about how open Hill was, it was still a huge call, pass, and he was under serious pressure. Dude had to drop back like 15 yards to get the time for that pass. Threw a 55ish yard pass just before he got hit. Was a huge play by both Mahomes, and Hill. The pressure is an important context to that game, as well. Aside from Schwartz, SF was destroying our OL for much of the game. This played a huge part in the numbers he put up. And he still ended with 300+ total yards, 3 TDs, some incredibly clutch plays, a 4th quarter comeback, and a game winning drive. He had a rough 2 drives from the middle of the 3rd quarter to the early part of the 4th quarter. But they were clearly dwarfed by his phenomenal final 9 minutes or so. The first half he wasn't bad, just wasn't great either. 10 points out of 4 drives, tie game at that point.

If only we could have gotten a glimpse at how competitive KC's roster could still be with an injury to a star QB last year.

What? When did Forge quit his day job?

https://overthecap.com/thoughts-on-mahomes-450-million-contract/ Worth a read for those wanting a more thorough breakdown, at least of what we know so far.

We've got about $6M to work with this year, and $36M next year (though obviously this doesn't count other players we may want to bring back or cut loose), so there is enough wiggle room to try to get something done. Does depend a bit on what they expect from the cap after Covid though, also. If it goes down that $36M could be a good bit smaller. Would make it tougher.

There isn't that much cap analysis to be done here, with the information that's available. Not knowing when the roster bonuses become guaranteed, it's impossible at least to judge what we'd be looking at in terms of cap hit in any of those years if he's cut, but the cap hits and money flow are actually mostly simple with so few true guarantees. So, with the signing bonus only being $10M, that'll come out to $2M per year of cap each of the next 5 years (signing bonus is normally stretched the length of the contract, but the max it can be prorated over is 5 years there, so it'll be $2M of cap hit in '20, '21, '22, '23, and '24.) I'm pretty sure each other year, the cap hit is basically just going to be what's in the "Cash" column of that chart. Salary and roster bonuses should hit the cap in the year they're paid out. Without much signing bonus, there isn't much to add or change most of those years. It's really just a question of when he has outs, when the roster bonuses and salaries become guaranteed versus paid out, and when we would have potential outs accordingly. Like, if 2030 and 2031 become guaranteed in like 2028, that makes him hard to cut between 2028 and 2029, versus if 2031 only becomes guaranteed on the third day of 2031, then he'd be borderline free to cut at that point. Those are the main questions that really exist, here, from what I can see. Though obviously the goal is for cutting him to never be worth considering anyways. There's also a no trade clause, so that never becomes relevant here either.