All IM going to say is this...
On paper, Smith is being handed a vastly more talented team than Kirk had to work with last year. If this team stays relatively healthy, and we dont make the playoffs and win a playoffs game because of Smiths play. One would have to begin to question the talent level of Smith.
Nonsense, While I agree that poor play from Smith requires as much criticism as can be thrown his way for his performances, making the playoffs and winning a game there, has no relation to Kirk. How would we know that Kirk would have done better, worse or about the same as whatever poor performance we're talking about?
Here's the thing, Kirk is gone, but while here, teams that were put together with him amassed records of 9-7, 8-7-1, and 7-9. Smith right now is 0-0 as a starter here. Your wanting to say, "we would have done better with Kirk" if Smith struggles has no basis in fact. I know that there are hurt feeling about his departure and that's OK, but it is as unfair to use Kirk in that way as it is to match Kirk against the Viking team that went 13-3 last season. By that standard we should all lament how much of a failure Kirk is if his team goes 12-4, 11-5, or 10-6. That Bum! how dare he go to a Vikings team that ONLY wins 10, 11 or 12 games because his team, on paper, is vastly improved over last year's squad?....I can hear it now, "Keenum would have done better and without the added expense!"
It's all noise now, Kirk is gone, and he ain't coming back, can't we appreciate what he did here and look forward to what this year's team will do?
Last edited: