The Eagles game will be interesting... on one hand, they have the worst pass defense through two games (oh noes, a built in excuse!!), but OTOH, they've put up 30 points in each game. Only them and the Chargers are averaging 30 points for and 30 against through two games, and with a short week against a the former coach, I don't expect their defense to improve much.

It will by no means give any definitive answers any more than any other single game, but it'll go a long way in showing what the Chiefs' defense is really made of... not just if Smith can match scoring drives, but how often he'll have to do it.

The dropped picks argument is dumb as ****...just sayin

Just saying... let's not go overboard praising his ball security when he's fortunate to still be pristine in that sense.

Alex Smith doesn't take chances he only makes safe throws lol..

he does take chances, he just prefers the smarter throws.

I even say Clay point out that Alex Smith threw to a wide open McCluster because of a busted coverage.

I thought that was the IDEA. Throw to the open guy.

Two games? Try the past 3 seasons. This is exactly how Alex Smith has been winning games since 2011.

He doesn't throw it the other team as much as most, all QB's get away with shit.

Romo got away with a bullshit holding call on a horrible throw that was a pick.

But I guess Alex must be perfect or else he doesn't live up to the CP standard.

Speaking of perfect how about that 100% Redzone efficiency.

how about the fact that I owned that turd so bad he decided to ignore me?

Agreed. That is his biggest strength as a QB.

Yes, that's true.

Perfect? No. Robot QBs do not exist.

One can be skeptical about Alex Smith's performance and upside in KC without taking it to Clay-like levels of extreme.

I've never really said Alex Smith was terrible. Or not worthy of starting in the NFL. Only that he is more middle of the pack than anything else, and that isn't good enough to get KC where we all want to go (legitimate contention, playoff wins, the Super Bowl, etc.) long-term.

Obviously, Andy Reid saw something in Alex. I want to see it, too. I want to see it realized and brought out. It just hasn't been so far.

He's been fine. Adequate. I'll believe that level of QB performance can win with this team in the playoffs when I see it. I'll believe Alex Smith can consistently raise above that level of performance when I see it.

It's definitely nice to have a legit NFL QB and one that doesn't shit his pants in the red zone.

I just think it fails the smell test to use Alex Smith's ball protection skills as such a huge strength and foundation for comparisons between Alex Smith and other QBs ... the day after he threw two passes into the hands of defenders. At least to a certain degree.

I've seen several of your posts that show you aren't over-estimating Alex Smith... game manager, isn't the guy who will win you 13+ games and SBs, etc... but, it's just odd that you also want to gloat and say "I told you so" after these types of wins. I know the title of this thread is "did, does, and will always suck," but that's typical gochiefs hyperbole.

Regarding this statement...
...if you think the Chiefs can reach 9 or 10 wins with this kind of offensive output, I don't really see how you're proving anyone wrong or owning anyone. I think most Chiefs fans would say that's reasonable for Alex Smith. The "haters" aren't saying this is completely unexpected by any means. Like I've said, even Tim Tebow has won a playoff game, so yes, Alex Smith is good enough to beat Jax and Dallas, too.

If you think that kind of offense will work deep into the playoffs, and it happens, then you'll have a big reason to gloat. Saying "I told you he could beat Jacksonville and Dallas by being efficient!" doesn't make sense to me, unless people in the offseason were saying that.... me, jsp, duncan, etc; haven't ever said he couldn't do that.


:facepalm:

Isnt the object to win games?

I have never been as you said overly confident in Alex Smiths ability to put up tons of yards, I also realize that typically his teams don't score the most points in the league. And in a pass first league, it defies logic. I understand it. But, there were people here who said that him with Andy Reid away from the SF Run game Defense, and Coach Harbaugh that it wouldn't work.

I don't even understand how its working.

I thought the defense would be better just for the fact that it was pretty talented on paper, and that the offense not turning the ball over all the time would help.

I thought that Charles would be more effective, but in reality, there has been no running game, and the offense has been able to score enough, combined with timely defensive turnovers and stops to keep winning.

Im not gloating. It just is what it is. Some how, some way, Alex Smith has made a habit the past three years of doing just enough to win.

Is he going to lose? Sure, if the Chiefs fall behind big, I don't know how they will get back into it.

I know that Alex Smith isn't elite. The guys just keeps winning though. Its weird.......

In theory, I don't care how they win, but it's pretty obvious the NFL has created a league that's all about the quarterback. Baltimore and SF both averaged 30ppg last postseason. Sure, you might not need that kind of offense 13/16 games in the regular season, but it's pretty damn important in the postseason when you're up against Rodgers, Brady, Manning, etc*.

It's not a huge surprise Smith has been winning (certainly not the past two weeks)... it's the nature of the league. It's top heavy with only so many elite QBs/teams, so a good team with an efficient QB can win a lot of games against mediocre and bad competition, and can even rise up to upset a few teams. But, the overwhelming evidence is that you need someone who's more than serviceable to be a legit threat in the playoffs.

As far as the Chiefs specifically, the game plan kind of sucked yesterday, but I can only assume they'll work on getting JC more touches... if it's rushing, as a wideout as they did a few times yesterday, screens, etc. The glaring item at this point is the offensive line. Defensively, it was pretty much Dez Bryant making them look bad. I used to be pretty bad at jumping to conclusions early on, so I've kind of programmed myself towards the other extreme... the popular thing in the past few seasons is people say coaches evaluate by quarter, and I think that's a pretty good time to review, since they'll have played a couple more interesting matchups by then.



*Of course, anyone can poke holes in this with exceptions, but it is the obvious trend over the past several years.

See 1990 to 1997 Kansas City Chiefs.

LMAO

See *, and that was 15-20 years ago..... oh, and the only time they did anything in the playoffs was when they had Joe Montana.



1trend intransitive verb \ˈtrend\

Definition of TREND

1
a : to extend in a general direction
2
a : to show a tendency : incline <prices trending upward>

I was agreeing with you. Local example to prove you can have one hell of a team and the QB holds you back when it matters - playoffs.

True if the QB has no ability to make the big play. I don't think Smith has shown that inability in recent years.

Oddly enough we had a QB on the roster in 1997 that could do that.

We then built a team that was heavy on offense and crap defense.

So no we haven't been doing the same thing over and over again.


People have also seemed to have forgotten they tried to develop Croyle, it just didn't work out.