Maybe the best way to look at it is this. If you had pick a personnel set right now and try to win the superbowl in 3 years, which would you rather choose?

(1) Dallas Cowboys
(2) San Diego Chargers
(3) Chiefs

I understand where you're coming from, but how much of that is due to age, and the fact that there are a handful of guys that make it really hard to break through? It's damn near the same teams that are playing in late January and early February.

I don't think the contract for an elite QB prevents the building of a complete team, but I do think it leaves less wiggle room when it comes to hitting on draft picks and FA's.

If you're paying a QB $20M and your personnel department can't find some late round/UDFA talent or consistently miss on early picks, you be ****ed.

You haven't been here for a little while, at least.. you or OTW...

Now suddenly you are flooding these pages with toxic posts... mostly whining about other fans instead of the topics at hand.

I f I have this wrong, then fine with me... but I sure don't remember you posting much here for a while... OTW pops on for a week and cries heavily... then runs back to another board (IIRC) and disappears for a little while... then comes back for more toxicity.

it's whatever... just clarification

You've backed yourself into a corner.

If the answer to your question is "yes" then Charles stats suggest that Matt Cassel is BETTER at doing those things than Alex Smith is.

Please just stop.

That's kinda my point when I spoke to a Smith extension.

Smith's perception is not what the perception of these other guys are. Flacco, etc... are guys, much like Smith, that need to be surrounded by the right talent to win big but their contracts prevent it.

Well Smith's might not because his perception actually matches his reality. So signing him to a fair extension makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Big contracts for HoF quarterbacks (the premier 4 guys right now) make sense. But the market dictates that gunslingers and 'name' guys like Cutler are going to get $20+ and that's going to hamstring those teams. In that regard, I think we're in lockstep (though people like Chiefscountry continue to remain out to lunch in how they approach this discussion, IMO).

So extend Smith for 3-4 years and keep trying to find the young guy that you get a few underpaid years out of and win with them.

This would be true if I suggested that the ONLY variable that goes into a RB's numbers were the QB's play diagnosis.

That never happened... so you and BCD are talking out of your ass.

Some are given the freedom to audible plays.

So you wouldn't care if Smith got hot, we won a SB, extended him for 5 years and as a consequence lost Justin Houston?

Because that's what would happen.

And that's a really shitty way to build a football team.

What use is there in participating in the topics at hand? There's no discussion going on here, outside of a few key people. You're certainly not participating usefully, just parroting stats and otherwise bashing people for not agreeing with you.

I don't post here much anymore because it's overrun with idiots like you. I don't have any interest in discussing Chiefs football with somebody that obviously knows nothing about Chiefs football and wouldn't otherwise give a shit about Chiefs football if Alex Smith wasn't the QB.

If I wanted to talk football with teenage girls, I could talk to my daughter. She knows more about Chiefs football than you do.

ROFL

LMAO Charles numbers are DOWN to the point he is at a career low in YPC, so how can you support that Alex is making him better off than previous years? Show me some facts.

Are you saying Bill Muir and Todd Haley call a better game than Andy Reid and that's why the numbers are way down?

Where are you coming from here?

The apparent reality that someone like you even has a daughter... ugh... how proud she would be to see you express yourself like this. :doh!:

Actually, the Chargers might be one I'd consider over the Chiefs.

But that's due in large part to the fact that I believe Rivers is a truly excellent QB and his contract matches his status as a very good, but not historic passer. His average salary over the length of his extension is a hair over $14 million. Even in his last 2 backloaded seasons, he'll average right at $17 million. That's a lot, but not prohibitive.

The problem has been that in the last few years some very stupid contracts have been handed out that have warped the value/view of solid quarterbacks who do not qualify as true force multipliers.

There's inherent value in a QB who's production actually matches his paycheck in a salary cap environment.

Go back and read JENKINSWINS posts on the subject. He first clarified that Smith had a better running game in SF until that was proven wrong. Then he stated that Charles's success is because of Alex Smith reading defenses.....proved wrong again.

Nope. The bottom line is to win the Lombardi. We get one I would be a very happy person.