Alex Smith Extension Talks

[Jimmya]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/chiefs-...5970--nfl.html

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by temper11

Good god... we are in fight mode now? Why does everything always boil down to this? No, but I didn't make up that saying. If fact I said Reid went to Protect and Prevent too early, not just prevent. Should have kept the gas pedal down on both sides of the ball. I just think the offense did a better job of "Protect" (still a C+ which is nothing to brag about) than the defense did of "Prevent". That's it. If they both do "C" quality work, Chiefs win.

That's all. I certainly respect your opinion here. Just stating mine. We don't need to be enemies.

LOL, alex smith fanboi here...


obviously.

and im not even bashing smith here.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

these guys think we are all just bashing alex and are butthurt over it.


idiots

Smith gave up the fumble, he also was responsible for hiking the ball with plenty of time on the playclock, so much of the reason the Protect Offense grade isn't higher IMO falls on his shoulders.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Seriously.

I don't see how its even possible to give one a better second half grade than the other. They both get a ****ing F. If you are going to count the first 3 mins as a positive for one side, guess what... it's a positive for the other side. But they were both terrible for the final 27 mins. You might have an argument for the offense getting a D- because they managed 1 drive for a FG, but then I'd go back to the first FG and negate the shit out of that because the first FG goes to the defense. So **** that... they both get an F.

Who said the first 3 mins weren't a positive for both sides? I'm strictly speaking about the purpose and goals for "Protect Offense" and "Prevent Defense". This isn't new-age shit here... Scoring really isn't a GOAL of protect offense. Of course if it happens it's a positive, but it is not the goal. Just as turnovers are not the goal of prevent defense. If it happens, great, but it is not the GOAL.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

LOL, alex smith fanboi here...


obviously.

and im not even bashing smith here.

Good one... you exposed me! Dang, and I was trying to keep my agenda hidden. Now everyone knows.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by temper11

Who said the first 3 mins weren't a positive for both sides? I'm strictly speaking about the purpose and goals for "Protect Offense" and "Prevent Defense". This isn't new-age shit here... Scoring really isn't a GOAL of protect offense. Of course if it happens it's a positive, but it is not the goal. Just as turnovers are not the goal of prevent defense. If it happens, great, but it is not the GOAL.

You are simply reeruned.

You can't even follow your own argument before you start contradicting it.

You listed the offense scoring points, but now it doesn't count because that's not the "goal" of a protect offense.

You don't list the turnovers for the defense which allowed 77% of those points because thats not the "goal" of a prevent offense.

Just stfu already. Your opinion comes with AIDS.

[Marcellus]

You guys can argue about shit all day long but I think just maybe the truckload of injuries may have played the biggest roll in the loss.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

They didn't play an entire game of offense like Madden on rookie that's a fail/CP

[htismaqe]

People keep saying that all the defense needed to do was get "one stop".

Well, the defense produced a TURNOVER with 5:50 left in the 3rd quarter, at the Indianapolis 28 yard line no less.

That's infinitely better than "just one stop". That's a gift on a golden platter.

The offense managed to turn it into just 7 yards and 3 points.

Does that mean the offense lost the game? Of course not.

But to suggest that the defense gave them ZERO opportunities to win the game in the 2nd half just isn't accurate.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by jd1020

You are simply reeruned.

You can't even follow your own argument before you start contradicting it.

You listed the offense scoring points, but now it doesn't count because that's not the "goal" of a protect offense.

You don't list the turnovers for the defense which allowed 77% of those points because thats not the "goal" of a prevent offense.

Just stfu already. Your opinion comes with AIDS.

Check who is reeruned... I did not list the offense scoring points.. I listed the offense turning the ball over which led to 7 COLTS points. This is part of the reason I lowered the "Protect Offense" grade. Had they not given up that turnover, and done a better job managing the clock, I'd have given them an "A" whether they scored any points or not. Scoring is not a primary goal of "Protect Offense".

[temper11]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

People keep saying that all the defense needed to do was get "one stop".

Well, the defense produced a TURNOVER with 5:50 left in the 3rd quarter, at the Indianapolis 28 yard line no less.

That's infinitely better than "just one stop". That's a gift on a golden platter.

The offense managed to turn it into just 7 yards and 3 points.

Does that mean the offense lost the game? Of course not.

But to suggest that the defense gave them ZERO opportunities to win the game in the 2nd half just isn't accurate.

Turnover is awesome - absolutely. But Turnovers are not a primary goal of "Prevent Defense". Not allowing big plays and requiring time-consuming drives are. Defense failed in this in the second half. If the defense doesn't get any turnovers in the second half, but keep everything in front of them and make the Colts offense have to work for their points, then the Defense would have succeeded in "Prevent D" regardless of turning the ball over even once.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by temper11

Check who is reeruned... I did not list the offense scoring points.. I listed the offense turning the ball over which led to 7 COLTS points.

That's not at all what you said.

[FringeNC]

If the Chiefs offense plays like it did against Indy all season next year, I'll be happy. What I'm a little confused about is the offensive line. With my untrained eyes, it appeared the good vs. bad Alex Smith revolved around the O-line, and we just blew up the line that appeared to be effective. Perhaps it was all the switch to zone blocking. Makes you wonder what took so long for the switch if it was that.

Last year, Chiefs offensive was all over the place...from near the worst to one of the best. All we can really do is hope Reid and Dorsey understand the causes, and are correct about Fisher and Rishaw Johnson. We really have no idea what offense will show up next year.

[Cmd'r&Chief]

Originally Posted by BossChief

The announcement that Alex Smith has signed a 120 million dollar contract will probably blow up the server at ChiefsPlanet.

Before you laugh at me for saying that, realize that Andy Reid lobbied to give Mike Vick that 100 million dollar contract and that he was willing to get bent over a barrel to get Alex Smith in KC. His players always say "Andy got me paid"

Prepare for it, guys...it's most definitely coming and it's gonna be worse that Cassels63 million dollar deal.

Except Andy doesn't deal with personnel anymore. Dorsey does.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by jd1020

That's not at all what you said.

I originally said:

- 7 offensive possessions in second half- 1 turnover converted to points.

I just changed it so it would be more clear to:

- 7 offensive possessions in second half- allowed 1 turnover that was converted to points.

I thought this was obvious as the Chiefs Offense actually scored on two turnovers in the second half. Again... I don't know why this conversation has to be so adversarial.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Cmd'r&Chief

Except Andy doesn't deal with personnel anymore. Dorsey does.

Officially that's the case, but with Reid reporting directly to Clark that might not be the exact way things work out.