Mellinger: Alex Smith is out of excuses, and he needs to deliver his best season

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Rivermike87

So 11+ wins and he gets to stay? Sounds kind of unfair don't you think? However I could definitely see them win that many games. Considering what we've seen from the past from this team, they are only getting better and better. Being a 9-7 team last year wth what they had to go through only strengthens my optimism for this year. 11-5 sounds bout right to me. Don't think I have ever seen the Chiefs have a complete team like this

My position on Alex Smith has always been clear - he makes your team exactly as good as it is.

He's not Aaron Rodgers, who makes it better. He's not Matt Cassel, who makes it worse.

If you took the Chiefs and every other team in the league, subtracted the quarterbacks and were asked to rank order them, is there any argument at all that the Chiefs are at least a top 5 team by that metric? I don't think so - the talent on this team is immense.

You're right, I could be being unfair, but my general perception of the NFL 'bell curve' is that every year there 4-5 teams that win 12+ games and another 2-3 that win 11.

So if I'm right and Alex Smith truly is a guy who makes your team exactly as good as it is and I believe that the Chiefs are a top 5 team quarterback excluded, then 11 wins should be a fair expectation.

By season's end it's possible he could have played well and we end up at 10 wins; I'd still deal with that. But anything less has to be seen as an unqualified failure for Alex Smith and a definite sign that he's not a quarterback that can take this team anywhere meaningful.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

My position on Alex Smith has always been clear - he makes your team exactly as good as it is.

He's not Aaron Rodgers, who makes it better. He's not Matt Cassel, who makes it worse.

If you took the Chiefs and every other team in the league, subtracted the quarterbacks and were asked to rank order them, is there any argument at all that the Chiefs are at least a top 5 team by that metric? I don't think so - the talent on this team is immense.

You're right, I could be being unfair, but my general perception of the NFL 'bell curve' is that every year there 4-5 teams that win 12+ games and another 2-3 that win 11.

So if I'm right and Alex Smith truly is a guy who makes your team exactly as good as it is and I believe that the Chiefs are a top 5 team quarterback excluded, then 11 wins should be a fair expectation.

By season's end it's possible he could have played well and we end up at 10 wins; I'd still deal with that. But anything less has to be seen as an unqualified failure for Alex Smith and a definite sign that he's not a quarterback that can take this team anywhere meaningful.

I'm not throwing stones, I legitimately want to know because I respect your opinion, but where are you at on injuries?

Jamaal Charles, Justin Houston, a myriad of other dudes missing serious time changes the equation significantly. Worst case scenario, Charles goes down, misses 8 games, and the narrative is that Alex didn't have his best weapon. Where does your evaluation of him stand then?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

I'm not throwing stones, I legitimately want to know because I respect your opinion, but where are you at on injuries?

Jamaal Charles, Justin Houston, a myriad of other dudes missing serious time changes the equation significantly. Worst case scenario, Charles goes down, misses 8 games, and the narrative is that Alex didn't have his best weapon. Where does your evaluation of him stand then?

On the other side, is 11+ wins always good enough? It depends on what you define as a good season. Alex haters are going to be ridiculously unreasonable. Alex homers are going to be ridiculously apologetic.

I don't care about winning games if they're done the wrong way. Last 2 years are funny examples. In 2013, we won 9 games despite Alex (easy schedule, defense bailed him out most games) yet went 2-5 in games where Alex played some of the best football in his Chiefs' career but the D laid a big goose egg. In 2014, he was a huge reason for the Chiefs going 7-1 during their hot streak, but was also a huge reason for the Chiefs going 1-5 the other miserable stretch.

My criteria for Alex has always been simple... if you're going to manage games, you better convert third downs and close games. If you open up the offense, you have a lot more leniency on those 2 points.

[Why Not?]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

I'm not throwing stones, I legitimately want to know because I respect your opinion, but where are you at on injuries?

Jamaal Charles, Justin Houston, a myriad of other dudes missing serious time changes the equation significantly. Worst case scenario, Charles goes down, misses 8 games, and the narrative is that Alex didn't have his best weapon. Where does your evaluation of him stand then?

I'm not speaking for DJ'sLN here, but my opinion would be that the narrative on Alex wouldn't change at all. Sure, the win total would, but not his ability to win or lose more games. Since, as far as I know, there's not a stat like WAR for football, let's say Jamaal is worth 4 wins(the Chiefs will win 4 games with him that they lose with Davis or West as the bell cow). So if we're using 11 wins as our base, let's say with JC out(please no, not again), the Chiefs are a 7 win team. I think the point he is making is that Alex will go out and win you those 7 games. He won't win 10, he won't win 5. He'll keep the needle right in the middle.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

I'm not throwing stones, I legitimately want to know because I respect your opinion, but where are you at on injuries?

Jamaal Charles, Justin Houston, a myriad of other dudes missing serious time changes the equation significantly. Worst case scenario, Charles goes down, misses 8 games, and the narrative is that Alex didn't have his best weapon. Where does your evaluation of him stand then?

I'm very optimistic about the Chiefs season. I haven't been this confident since 2003 and 2004 (misplaced, it turned out). The roster is very solid.

But why are we making contingencies for Smith? The defense lost DJ, DeVito, and Berry last year. Guess what? They were still good. No one is talking about Rogers having a bad season because Jordy Nelson is out for the season. No one ever has to make excuses for winners.

He just needs to step up and do it. Period.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

I'm not throwing stones, I legitimately want to know because I respect your opinion, but where are you at on injuries?

Jamaal Charles, Justin Houston, a myriad of other dudes missing serious time changes the equation significantly. Worst case scenario, Charles goes down, misses 8 games, and the narrative is that Alex didn't have his best weapon. Where does your evaluation of him stand then?

{shrug}

It depends. Ultimately our thesis is that Smith has enough weapons to win with. If Charles goes down and he's looking at Davis/West + Maclin and Kelce, I'd say he still has an average to slightly above average set of weapons and he should still be decent. Perhaps the team ceiling drops by a game, but I'm not going to give him a pass for anything.

Kelce going down could actually hurt the most, followed by Maclin.

I guess ultimately my answer is that it would take a pretty catastrophic set of injuries for me to just say 'well he didn't have enough to win'. Essentially, the injuries would have to be enough to wipe out my underlying operating assumption: That Smith has the tools around him to succeed. Losing one T or one pass catcher shouldn't be enough to blow that assumption apart.

This line is going to be fine. And there is enough depth among his weapons that he should be able to lose one of the big ones and still be solid. NFL teams deal with injuries and Smith may have to deal with a couple here and there. If he's really completely comfortable in this offense now, that shouldn't be an issue for him and he should continue to perform.