You keep sayign I am dishonest etc...then you use pussy ass terms like 'well gee shucks i probably was incorrect...uhu.durrr..."


when all along you couldve just looked at the ****ign stats and said , you know what youre right..I diodnt know that...
all the while youve never said why i am dishonest

Win / loss record means nothing.... you are delusional

Then why did you respond to my initial post saying that the people that want Smith benched are idiots? You jumped into this on your own.

I'm talking about you using the word "dismal" against me when I already admitted I used the wrong word. That's dishonest.

Well yeah, but besides all that stuff.

If you look at smiths career 8 years in, he had a completion rate of under 60% (59ish) and barely a .500 record

foles is 5 years into his career and has better stats than smith did at year 8 including win / loss%

who knows what will happen....but saying foles couldnt get lucky and find a good situation like alex did and improve in the future is crazy talk...

alex went from a .500 w/l QB with 59% completionrate to now he is 75 wins 50 losses ish and 64% completion rate all in 4 years

Not at all what I said you ****ing dip shit.

thats not the post I responded to..

here it is:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...&postcount=210

You are full of fail tonight...maybe you should go to the local discount store and stock up on tampons you ****ign blood vag


Ive never said I want smith benched and your post that I responded to mentioning NOTHING of benching him

Speaking of fail.

That's the post I was referring to. You know, the one where I was calling out the idiots in this thread that want Smith benched.

Clearly not directed at you, yet you decided to engage me anyway.

Ill try one time to be civil...because I think there is a misunderstanding here..

Your post does not mention benching anyone. Your post mentions 'proof' of 'performance'. I thought about it ..and was thinking how one would go about 'proving' a guy could perform better...and then I looked up their stats...and found that actually Foles has a slightly better statistical performance over his career...and quite a bit better statistical performance if you compare the 1st 5 years of their careers.

So, I disagree that only an 'idiot' would argue Foles would perform better...its not unreasonable...I am not arguing to bench him . Go back and read my post again. I am arguing that it is reasonable to suspect Foles could perform better, since he has done so statistically already.

Not trying to say we should bench him now..just pointing out some intersting stats you may or may not be aware of...thats it.

Not even close.

Fine, I'll be civil too and apologize for the name calling.

I knew you were not one of the "bench Alex" crowd. Foles stats are slightly better, but still is not proof that it warrants a change, IMO.

Is this clay, gochiefs, etc?
no way anybody has this kind of post count


could you do the Gif'd up shit again that was good

There's just no other context for why someone would want to talk about the last 19 games... The number 19 is specifically chosen because it gives the highest win rate of any other number of games you could pick. That makes it misleading to me, its not inaccurate but its like a politician cherry picking just the numbers that make them look right.

My sources tell me Foles is starting against Jax. Just being cautious with Smith.

Something something house in Leawood