Jump to content

Who Has The Better Offense? Rams or Chiefs


stl4life07

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, jrry32 said:

Respectfully, you're paying him $16 million per year to be on pace for about 800 yards and 5 TDs.

The only disappointment with Watkins is the 2 or 3 missed games and I thought at the beginning of the season he wasn't great but overall he has been real good.

You have to take into account that he is the #3 receiving option in the Chiefs offense.

And do you realize that Mahomes is the league's leader both in terms of passing yards and TDs? Watkins is part of that. I mean there is only so many yards and TDs that you can get.

If Watkins had more yards and TDs, probably Kelce and Hill would have less, that's how I see it.

And Watkins for the first time in his career has been used to run the ball, with 52 yards, more than any top WR other than Hill I believe (oh now I have just seen that Robert Woods has more than 100 rushing yards and also first time in his career that he is being used to run the ball). There's value in that too.

Anyways, trust me, it is only the injuries but otherwise there is no one on the Chiefs with any regret in regards to Watkins.

 

A guy like Allen Robinson would make more sense with regard to your comment of a WR being paid a lot and not producing big numbers. He is supposed to be the #1 receiving option in Chicago and his stats so far are even less than Watkins.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watkins hasnt been a disappointment when he is on the field for the Chiefs. The problem is he has trouble staying on the field. I know he hasnt missed many games this season but the best ability is availability. Games like MNF against the Rams is where the Chiefs needed him the most. I know the Chiefs still scored 51pts and had a chance to win the game BUT they paid Watkins for games like that. Relying on Conley opposite of Hill wasnt the Chiefs idea during the offseason for games like this. Just like the Rams didnt think relying on Reynolds opposite of Woods for games like this was an option. Thats why the Rams went out and got Cooks. Sure Reynolds stepped up in the absences of Kupp but having Woods and Cooks was one of the reasons it made things easier for Goff and Reynolds and Everett and Higbee. Having Watkins wouldve made things even easier for Mahomes and there were times Peters made plays when Mahomes tried to go to Kelce. Having Watkins out there wouldve certain helped. 

As for the debate of Woods and Watkins, Woods is totally showing his worth. Same can be said about Cooks. Cooks was a guy McVay wanted badly last offseason but didnt have the assets to give to the Saints. He had to settle for plan B which was Watkins. Not saying Watkins is a bad player but again he has to stay healthy or his talent doesnt matter. He will just be another Percy Harvin. Talented guy that you can dream about his impact on the field but sadly all you see alot of the time is him in street clothes on the sideline watching. I like Watkins and hope he can have a great career with the Chiefs but in a game like MNF Im reminded of how great it is to have Woods and Cooks and how it much suck for the Chiefs to have Watkins right now because he wasnt out there helping the team in a big game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
20 hours ago, Buckweath said:

Time to revisit.

Chiefs! Clearly.

Better QB, 4 first team All-Pro, better PPG, you name it.

 

I can play this game. Rams! Clearly.

Better RB, better PFF grade, better record, better head to head. You name it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Riftty said:

I can play this game. Rams! Clearly.

Better RB, better PFF grade, better record, better head to head. You name it.

Not to mention when the Chiefs lost Hunt you can see their struggles. They beat the Raiders by 7, it took OT to beat the Ravens, they blew a 14pt lead with 5 minutes left in the game (no team has ever lost a game in that situation) to the Chargers, and they lost to the Seahawks.

The Rams didnt have their back and they still rushed for 499yds combined in the 2 games averaging over 44pts and won comfortably. I know someone is going to say it was the Niners and the Cards but Ill say it again, alot of people favorites to go to the Super Bowl the Bears barely beat both teams this season. They beat the Cards 16-14 and the Niners 14-6. So the Rams do what great teams do and thats beat down the teams that they should and not even give them any hope that they have a shot to win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Riftty said:

I can play this game. Rams! Clearly.

Better RB, better PFF grade, better record, better head to head. You name it.

Better RB? Major piece sure but QB means more to an offense.

PFF? Youve already lost the debate.

Record? Football is a team game still right?

Head to head? Pretty sure Chiefs offense scored more than the Rams. Also team sport.

Yeah sure ill give rams a team advantage, but this an offense comparison. And chiefs are the first team to score over 26 per game for an entire season. Against a tough schedule at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Riftty said:

I can play this game. Rams! Clearly.

Better RB, better PFF grade, better record, better head to head. You name it.

 

5 hours ago, stl4life07 said:

Not to mention when the Chiefs lost Hunt you can see their struggles. They beat the Raiders by 7, it took OT to beat the Ravens, they blew a 14pt lead with 5 minutes left in the game (no team has ever lost a game in that situation) to the Chargers, and they lost to the Seahawks.

The Rams didnt have their back and they still rushed for 499yds combined in the 2 games averaging over 44pts and won comfortably. I know someone is going to say it was the Niners and the Cards but Ill say it again, alot of people favorites to go to the Super Bowl the Bears barely beat both teams this season. They beat the Cards 16-14 and the Niners 14-6. So the Rams do what great teams do and thats beat down the teams that they should and not even give them any hope that they have a shot to win. 

Anything in bold really has relatively little to do with a comparison of the offenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like it's the scientist vs lab experiment comparison, and it's just preference at this stage.

You've got KC (the crazy experiment) - utterly explosive, can strike at any damned moment, and has volatile weapons

LAR are maybe more cerebral, clinical and they have to be more clever in game plan and scheme. The PA is a killer, too. 

 

I'd actually prefer to have LAR's offense, given it's coaching, running, reliability, but I'd have to say KC's is more dangerous. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said:

I feel like it's the scientist vs lab experiment comparison, and it's just preference at this stage.

You've got KC (the crazy experiment) - utterly explosive, can strike at any damned moment, and has volatile weapons

LAR are maybe more cerebral, clinical and they have to be more clever in game plan and scheme. The PA is a killer, too. 

 

I'd actually prefer to have LAR's offense, given it's coaching, running, reliability, but I'd have to say KC's is more dangerous. 

 

Yeah I could agree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...