Pat Mahomes and the Kansas City Swifties Thread

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

If Mahomes regresses next year, as I believe he will (though he will still be good), will those carving his bust this year admit their overreaction?

Do you attempt to tamper other's appreciation of him because he took over for Alex Smith?

Technically if he has 45TDs next year , that is regression .

For Alex regression next year starts at 9 TDs or less .

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
If Mahomes regresses next year, as I believe he will (though he will still be good), will those carving his bust this year admit their overreaction?

Do you attempt to tamper other's appreciation of him because he took over for Alex Smith?

Did you mean "tamper" or "temper"?

In either case, the answer is no. Mahomes is playing out of his mind this year and is incredible to watch. Where I disagree with some, perhaps you included, is when the line is crossed from appreciating what he is doing and expecting big things from him going forward to things like (1) he's the best QB in football; (2) sure-fire first ballot HoFer; and (3) expecting that he'll shatter every passing record ever, etc., etc. .... all based on less than one season of play.

It is simply too soon, for me at least, to jump into those hyperbolic and over-exuberant views. I hope that helps you better understand my point of view.

Last 4 weeks:

Loss to the Rams
Barely beat the Raiders
OT with the Ravens
Loss to the Chargers

If they don't find some answers on Defense, it's going to be another short visit to the playoffs

That DB core was sooooo lost in the hurry up.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
If Mahomes regresses next year, as I believe he will (though he will still be good), will those carving his bust this year admit their overreaction?

Do you attempt to tamper other's appreciation of him because he took over for Alex Smith?

The interesting part of that discussion is that last year the narrative was that "all those weapons, along with the defense" was carrying Smith. Now those weapons are not so great after all and the defense is terrible.

The reality is that the defense is not good and that injuries have an impact, even on Mahomes.

Some deny the importance of Sammy Watkins because he has been "injury prone." However, that ignores the fact Reid/Veach thought it important to bring him in. Reid wanted another speed receiver to influence the defense away from just Hill. He got it in Watkins and Watkins was effective. In the 9 games in which he played, the Chiefs won 8. In the five games in which he has not been available full go, they are 3-2, and the Chiefs appear to be fading somewhat.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
If Mahomes regresses next year, as I believe he will (though he will still be good), will those carving his bust this year admit their overreaction?

Do you attempt to tamper other's appreciation of him because he took over for Alex Smith

Why bring Smith into the conversation? Mahomes is clearly a more dynamic and aggressive player than Smith has ever been in his pro career and he is playing lights out this year. His arm strength and playmaking ability have really helped take the Chiefs offense to another level, which is why the team moved on from Smith. And of course when, and if, the Chiefs flame out in the playoffs many posters in here will say it was the defense's fault that they didn't get it done. The same defense whose shortcomings they all said Smith should have overcome last year, if he were a "real" QB. It really is just an endless circle jerk with this criticism of Smith for people who apparently have nothing better to do with their time.

From my perspective at least, the argument around Smith has never been about whether he is an elite QB, or if he is in Rodgers class or Brady's, which he is clearly not. The only argument is whether or not he would have been a better QB for the SF 49ers during their three year run at the championship. Since his main competition for the spot is no longer even in the league my answer to that would be yes, he would have been a better QB for that period of time and those particular circumstances. And the fact that he got pushed aside by Harbaugh is probably the reason that that fanboy's favorite psychopath is no longer with the team. I don't see the situation in KC as being all that analogous. In this case Mahomes is clearly an upgrade but that doesn't make Smith a bad QB. His game is what it is and under the right circumstances it is probably good enough to win a championship but that window has almost certainly closed for him. Hopefully he will retire, count his blessings, and not get too caught up in what might have been.

Originally posted by dj43:

Some deny the importance of Sammy Watkins because he has been "injury prone." However, that ignores the fact Reid/Veach thought it important to bring him in. Reid wanted another speed receiver to influence the defense away from just Hill. He got it in Watkins and Watkins was effective. In the 9 games in which he played, the Chiefs won 8. In the five games in which he has not been available full go, they are 3-2, and the Chiefs appear to be fading somewhat.

Waktins has played 10 games, 2 of which he played a handful of snaps. The Broncos game he played one series and the Rams game he played like 7 snaps (cant find that stat but that is based off memory and is not off by much). So basically, Watkins has played 8 of the teams games, and they have been without him for 6 games.

In the 6 games which Watkins was not available or played so little he made no impact, the Chiefs offense is averaging 33.2 points per game. That would be good enough to rank the Chiefs 2nd in the NFL behind the Saints.

Mahomes is averaging 324.3 yards per game, and 2.83 touchdowns per game. Expand those numbers to a 16 game season, Mahomes would have 5,189 yards and 45 touchdowns.

Your analysis of the Chiefs without Watkins is 100% predicated on the fact that the Chiefs record hasnt been as good without him as with him. Well, the offense has statistically almost identical with or without Watkins. So I dont know how you can reach the conclusion that the Chiefs seem to be fading without him. They arent. The numbers show that.

Kyle said "He reminds me, just the way he moves, the way he throws, the way he looks in the pocket, he looks like John Elway to me.

"I'm not saying he's John Elway, but if I would compare him to someone, just the arm talent, the mobility, his lower half and how he sits with his shoulders, it's who he reminds me of when I watch him move."

and holy s**t is he right. They look similar on tape. Gonna take some serious serious nfl smarts, toughness, and hard work to prove he can actually be like Elway though.

Originally posted by 49ers81:
And of course when, and if, the Chiefs flame out in the playoffs many posters in here will say it was the defense's fault that they didn't get it done. The same defense whose shortcomings they all said Smith should have overcome last year, if he were a "real" QB. It really is just an endless circle jerk with this criticism of Smith for people who apparently have nothing better to do with their time.

If the Chiefs flame out in the playoffs this year because the Chiefs offense goes scoreless for the entire second half and blow a 3 touchdown lead, or the Chiefs lose to a team that doesnt even score a touchdown, you damn right I am going to put the blame on Patrick Mahomes.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by dj43:

Some deny the importance of Sammy Watkins because he has been "injury prone." However, that ignores the fact Reid/Veach thought it important to bring him in. Reid wanted another speed receiver to influence the defense away from just Hill. He got it in Watkins and Watkins was effective. In the 9 games in which he played, the Chiefs won 8. In the five games in which he has not been available full go, they are 3-2, and the Chiefs appear to be fading somewhat.

Waktins has played 10 games, 2 of which he played a handful of snaps. The Broncos game he played one series and the Rams game he played like 7 snaps (cant find that stat but that is based off memory and is not off by much). So basically, Watkins has played 8 of the teams games, and they have been without him for 6 games.

In the 6 games which Watkins was not available or played so little he made no impact, the Chiefs offense is averaging 33.2 points per game. That would be good enough to rank the Chiefs 2nd in the NFL behind the Saints.

Mahomes is averaging 324.3 yards per game, and 2.83 touchdowns per game. Expand those numbers to a 16 game season, Mahomes would have 5,189 yards and 45 touchdowns.

Your analysis of the Chiefs without Watkins is 100% predicated on the fact that the Chiefs record hasnt been as good without him as with him. Well, the offense has statistically almost identical with or without Watkins. So I dont know how you can reach the conclusion that the Chiefs seem to be fading without him. They arent. The numbers show that.

So if Watkins had no impact on the Chiefs, why did they sign Benjamin as soon as they learned Watkins would miss the rest of the regular season?

Or, why did they sign Watkins in the first place if he was too "injury-prone?"

The fact is, Reid wants a speed guy to supplement Hill and/or provide insurance in case he gets nicked again. Remember, it was when Hill was fighting a hip injury last year that things slowed down and now he has a heel that is bothering him. Reid has seen injuries derail playoff hopes in the past and he wants to do all he can to make sure that does not happen this year.

Reid is doing all this to make sure the offense stays rolling. Too bad Hunt went south. Reid's system will still get some yards from the RB position but Hunt was a special player that took it all up a notch.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by dj43:

Some deny the importance of Sammy Watkins because he has been "injury prone." However, that ignores the fact Reid/Veach thought it important to bring him in. Reid wanted another speed receiver to influence the defense away from just Hill. He got it in Watkins and Watkins was effective. In the 9 games in which he played, the Chiefs won 8. In the five games in which he has not been available full go, they are 3-2, and the Chiefs appear to be fading somewhat.

Waktins has played 10 games, 2 of which he played a handful of snaps. The Broncos game he played one series and the Rams game he played like 7 snaps (cant find that stat but that is based off memory and is not off by much). So basically, Watkins has played 8 of the teams games, and they have been without him for 6 games.

In the 6 games which Watkins was not available or played so little he made no impact, the Chiefs offense is averaging 33.2 points per game. That would be good enough to rank the Chiefs 2nd in the NFL behind the Saints.

Mahomes is averaging 324.3 yards per game, and 2.83 touchdowns per game. Expand those numbers to a 16 game season, Mahomes would have 5,189 yards and 45 touchdowns.

Your analysis of the Chiefs without Watkins is 100% predicated on the fact that the Chiefs record hasnt been as good without him as with him. Well, the offense has statistically almost identical with or without Watkins. So I dont know how you can reach the conclusion that the Chiefs seem to be fading without him. They arent. The numbers show that.

So if Watkins had no impact on the Chiefs, why did they sign Benjamin as soon as they learned Watkins would miss the rest of the regular season?

Or, why did they sign Watkins in the first place if he was too "injury-prone?"

The fact is, Reid wants a speed guy to supplement Hill and/or provide insurance in case he gets nicked again. Remember, it was when Hill was fighting a hip injury last year that things slowed down and now he has a heel that is bothering him. Reid has seen injuries derail playoff hopes in the past and he wants to do all he can to make sure that does not happen this year.

Reid is doing all this to make sure the offense stays rolling. Too bad Hunt went south. Reid's system will still get some yards from the RB position but Hunt was a special player that took it all up a notch.

Are you really asking why a team signed a replacement WR when one of their WRs went down for the season? Really dj? Cmon man. When Raheem Mostert went down, we signed a player from our practice squad (imagine we would have signed a free agent if there were any good ones available). Point being, Benjamin being signed has little to nothing to do with Watkins making an impact this season.

I dont disagree with Reid wanting a speed supplement for Hill or an insurance for him. But again, that doesnt mean that just because Watkins was brought in to be that player, that he is actually there doing his job. Albert Haynesworth was brought in by the Redskins to do a job. Just because the team thought they needed to sign him, doesnt mean he wasnt a replaceable player for that team.

Watkins was fine for the games he played. But once again, all you have to do is look at the offensive production during the time that he has been missing to see that he is nowhere close to as instrumental to the success of this offense as you claim he is. He simply isnt.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
And of course when, and if, the Chiefs flame out in the playoffs many posters in here will say it was the defense's fault that they didn't get it done. The same defense whose shortcomings they all said Smith should have overcome last year, if he were a "real" QB. It really is just an endless circle jerk with this criticism of Smith for people who apparently have nothing better to do with their time.

If the Chiefs flame out in the playoffs this year because the Chiefs offense goes scoreless for the entire second half and blow a 3 touchdown lead, or the Chiefs lose to a team that doesnt even score a touchdown, you damn right I am going to put the blame on Patrick Mahomes.

Let me make sure I understand your conditions:

It the Chiefs have a playoff game this season without Watkins, Benjamin and Conley for the entire game, and Kelce misses the entire second half, and, the offense does not get on the field until less than 5 minutes remain in the 3rd quarter, and they don't score a TD, you are going to put it all on Mahomes. Is that it?

Oh, the fact Hunt will not play either should have little relevance since he only carried 11 times for 42 yards and only 4 carries in the second half. (coaches choice)

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by dj43:

Some deny the importance of Sammy Watkins because he has been "injury prone." However, that ignores the fact Reid/Veach thought it important to bring him in. Reid wanted another speed receiver to influence the defense away from just Hill. He got it in Watkins and Watkins was effective. In the 9 games in which he played, the Chiefs won 8. In the five games in which he has not been available full go, they are 3-2, and the Chiefs appear to be fading somewhat.

Waktins has played 10 games, 2 of which he played a handful of snaps. The Broncos game he played one series and the Rams game he played like 7 snaps (cant find that stat but that is based off memory and is not off by much). So basically, Watkins has played 8 of the teams games, and they have been without him for 6 games.

In the 6 games which Watkins was not available or played so little he made no impact, the Chiefs offense is averaging 33.2 points per game. That would be good enough to rank the Chiefs 2nd in the NFL behind the Saints.

Mahomes is averaging 324.3 yards per game, and 2.83 touchdowns per game. Expand those numbers to a 16 game season, Mahomes would have 5,189 yards and 45 touchdowns.

Your analysis of the Chiefs without Watkins is 100% predicated on the fact that the Chiefs record hasnt been as good without him as with him. Well, the offense has statistically almost identical with or without Watkins. So I dont know how you can reach the conclusion that the Chiefs seem to be fading without him. They arent. The numbers show that.

So if Watkins had no impact on the Chiefs, why did they sign Benjamin as soon as they learned Watkins would miss the rest of the regular season?

Or, why did they sign Watkins in the first place if he was too "injury-prone?"

The fact is, Reid wants a speed guy to supplement Hill and/or provide insurance in case he gets nicked again. Remember, it was when Hill was fighting a hip injury last year that things slowed down and now he has a heel that is bothering him. Reid has seen injuries derail playoff hopes in the past and he wants to do all he can to make sure that does not happen this year.

Reid is doing all this to make sure the offense stays rolling. Too bad Hunt went south. Reid's system will still get some yards from the RB position but Hunt was a special player that took it all up a notch.

Are you really asking why a team signed a replacement WR when one of their WRs went down for the season? Really dj? Cmon man. When Raheem Mostert went down, we signed a player from our practice squad (imagine we would have signed a free agent if there were any good ones available). Point being, Benjamin being signed has little to nothing to do with Watkins making an impact this season.

I dont disagree with Reid wanting a speed supplement for Hill or an insurance for him. But again, that doesnt mean that just because Watkins was brought in to be that player, that he is actually there doing his job. Albert Haynesworth was brought in by the Redskins to do a job. Just because the team thought they needed to sign him, doesnt mean he wasnt a replaceable player for that team.

Watkins was fine for the games he played. But once again, all you have to do is look at the offensive production during the time that he has been missing to see that he is nowhere close to as instrumental to the success of this offense as you claim he is. He simply isnt.

So Reid has been wrong twice about adding a speed receiver?

I have nothing further.

Go Niners!

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
And of course when, and if, the Chiefs flame out in the playoffs many posters in here will say it was the defense's fault that they didn't get it done. The same defense whose shortcomings they all said Smith should have overcome last year, if he were a "real" QB. It really is just an endless circle jerk with this criticism of Smith for people who apparently have nothing better to do with their time.

If the Chiefs flame out in the playoffs this year because the Chiefs offense goes scoreless for the entire second half and blow a 3 touchdown lead, or the Chiefs lose to a team that doesnt even score a touchdown, you damn right I am going to put the blame on Patrick Mahomes.

Let me make sure I understand your conditions:

It the Chiefs have a playoff game this season without Watkins, Benjamin and Conley for the entire game, and Kelce misses the entire second half, and, the offense does not get on the field until less than 5 minutes remain in the 3rd quarter, and they don't score a TD, you are going to put it all on Mahomes. Is that it?

Oh, the fact Hunt will not play either should have little relevance since he only carried 11 times for 42 yards and only 4 carries in the second half. (coaches choice)

It has nothing to do with conditions dj.

49ers81 implied that we non-Alex fans would place blame on the defense when the Chiefs get knocked out and proceeded to say that would be hypocritical because we claimed a real quarterback should have been able to overcome the defense last year.

That statement is ridiculous, because there was no defensive shortcomings that needed to have been overcome last year with Smith. The Titans scored 22 points. Limiting a team to 22 points in the playoffs is not some astronomical number that would have needed some special performance to overcome. Smith wouldnt have needed to overcome the defenses shortcomings. He just needed to do SOMETHING in the 2nd half.

Sorry if I am not answering your question, but I find it to be a terrible misrepresentation of what we were talking about. If Mahomes loses a playoff game where they didnt score a point in an entire half (and only needing to score 23 total points to win), or loses a playoff game where his defense doesnt allow a single touchdown all game, then yes, Mahomes will absolutely deserve blame. There are a ton of other scenarios where the QB should be getting a ton of blame, not just the ones that Alex failed in the last 2 seasons.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by dj43:

Some deny the importance of Sammy Watkins because he has been "injury prone." However, that ignores the fact Reid/Veach thought it important to bring him in. Reid wanted another speed receiver to influence the defense away from just Hill. He got it in Watkins and Watkins was effective. In the 9 games in which he played, the Chiefs won 8. In the five games in which he has not been available full go, they are 3-2, and the Chiefs appear to be fading somewhat.

Waktins has played 10 games, 2 of which he played a handful of snaps. The Broncos game he played one series and the Rams game he played like 7 snaps (cant find that stat but that is based off memory and is not off by much). So basically, Watkins has played 8 of the teams games, and they have been without him for 6 games.

In the 6 games which Watkins was not available or played so little he made no impact, the Chiefs offense is averaging 33.2 points per game. That would be good enough to rank the Chiefs 2nd in the NFL behind the Saints.

Mahomes is averaging 324.3 yards per game, and 2.83 touchdowns per game. Expand those numbers to a 16 game season, Mahomes would have 5,189 yards and 45 touchdowns.

Your analysis of the Chiefs without Watkins is 100% predicated on the fact that the Chiefs record hasnt been as good without him as with him. Well, the offense has statistically almost identical with or without Watkins. So I dont know how you can reach the conclusion that the Chiefs seem to be fading without him. They arent. The numbers show that.

So if Watkins had no impact on the Chiefs, why did they sign Benjamin as soon as they learned Watkins would miss the rest of the regular season?

Or, why did they sign Watkins in the first place if he was too "injury-prone?"

The fact is, Reid wants a speed guy to supplement Hill and/or provide insurance in case he gets nicked again. Remember, it was when Hill was fighting a hip injury last year that things slowed down and now he has a heel that is bothering him. Reid has seen injuries derail playoff hopes in the past and he wants to do all he can to make sure that does not happen this year.

Reid is doing all this to make sure the offense stays rolling. Too bad Hunt went south. Reid's system will still get some yards from the RB position but Hunt was a special player that took it all up a notch.

Are you really asking why a team signed a replacement WR when one of their WRs went down for the season? Really dj? Cmon man. When Raheem Mostert went down, we signed a player from our practice squad (imagine we would have signed a free agent if there were any good ones available). Point being, Benjamin being signed has little to nothing to do with Watkins making an impact this season.

I dont disagree with Reid wanting a speed supplement for Hill or an insurance for him. But again, that doesnt mean that just because Watkins was brought in to be that player, that he is actually there doing his job. Albert Haynesworth was brought in by the Redskins to do a job. Just because the team thought they needed to sign him, doesnt mean he wasnt a replaceable player for that team.

Watkins was fine for the games he played. But once again, all you have to do is look at the offensive production during the time that he has been missing to see that he is nowhere close to as instrumental to the success of this offense as you claim he is. He simply isnt.

So Reid has been wrong twice about adding a speed receiver?

I have nothing further.

Go Niners!

What are you talking about dj? 1) Where did I say that? 2) Where are these 2 speed receivers? I certainly assume you arent talking about Benjamin, who has never once been described as a speed receiver.

You still have failed to acknowledge any of the statistics that I have dropped in this thread about the impact Watkins has made or not made on the offense. You have done nothing but hide behind the idea that "reid did ___ because ____" and refuse to talk about the actual results on the field. If you dont want to continue this discussion, fine. But we are going in circles because you continue to ignore what I post and post nothing besides a narrative about what you believe Reid was trying to do with the signing.