Alex Smith Extension Talks

[Jimmya]

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

[temper11]

Getting back to Smith extension topic...

I honestly think, (completely based on what he said post-season last year - which I realize could be a complete load of crap - and seen through the filter of my Smith Fanboi lens) he isn't nearly as concerned about money as he is winning football games. He's made a lot of money already in his career, is crazy smart and (given his degree in economics) will have no trouble making plenty more money after his football career is over. I think he's looking for commitment. He wants to find a home, play football, and rewrite how history will remember his career. So...

On one hand, he doesn't want the team to break the bank and chop itself off at the knees with a ridiculous contract.

On the other hand, he wants the team to invest in him so he isn't so easily replaced even when he is playing great football (he had the highest QBR in San Fran the week before he went down I think).

If the Chiefs can convince him that he is their guy - long term - in some other way than with a huge contract (assuming quality of play remains high) then I think he'd be happy to do a team friendly deal. I'm not really sure how you do that though. Maybe that's why you keep hearing all the love-talk from Reid Dorsey and Hunt. But words don't mean shit. Harbaugh said "Smith earned the starting role" as well. He certainly didn't do anything to un-earn it.

Anyway, that's my armchair psychologist opinion into what Smith is going for. Or, maybe he really is just staying completely out of it and letting Condon do everything. But what can the organization do, as far as assurances, that doesn't involve money?

[Hammock Parties]

Yes Alex Smith truly has a heart of gold. He's such a nice boy he might just play for league minimum!

[temper11]

Originally Posted by Douche Baggins

Yes Alex Smith truly has a heart of gold. He's such a nice boy he might just play for league minimum!

I said "team friendly deal" - not league min. I also said that I'm taking him at his word, which could just be BS lip service. However, he has shown several times in his career that money is not his primary motivating factor.

If that is truly the case, what can the Chiefs do to show commitment that doesn't involve a Flacco contract?

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by temper11

I said "team friendly deal" - not league min. I also said that I'm taking him at his word, which could just be BS lip service. However, he has shown several times in his career that money is not his primary motivating factor.

If that is truly the case, what can the Chiefs do to show commitment that doesn't involve a Flacco contract?

Drafting an offensive linemen in the 1st round every year that he's the starting QB!

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by temper11

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.

Sorry but this might be the most ****ed up logic I've ever seen. You're suggesting that the defense would have done a better job if they had allowed the Colts to gain more yards and eat up clock as opposed to giving their offense the ball 8 yards from the red zone?

I'm guessing the entire staff and team, including Alex Smith, would disagree with you.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Drafting an offensive linemen in the 1st round every year that he's the starting QB!

I think he'd rather have someone who can catch the ball.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Sorry but this might be the most ****ed up logic I've ever seen. You're suggesting that the defense would have done a better job if they had allowed the Colts to gain more yards and eat up clock as opposed to giving their offense the ball 8 yards from the red zone?

I'm guessing the entire staff and team, including Alex Smith, would disagree with you.

HT, I never said that. I simply state pretty commonly known strategies that offenses (protect the ball) and defenses (prevent big plays) employ when way ahead in a game.

In the second half with the KC Chiefs enjoying a 4 TD lead, the offense did an average job accomplishing those goals and the defense did a terrible job accomplishing those goals.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by OldSchool

Offense did their job in the second half as well, they added points and won TOP again

I think that's a bit of a mirage. Let's look a little more deeply.

Kansas City TOP: 17:35
First drive: (obtained via INT) 3 plays, 18 yards, 1 first down, ended in TD, 1:15 total
Second drive: 5 plays, 19 yards, 2 first downs, ended in fumble, 2:47 total
Third drive: 3 plays, 5 yards, no first downs, ended in punt, 1:42 total
Fourth drive: (obtained via INT), 4 plays, 4 yards total, no first downs, ended in FG, 1:32 total
Fifth drive: 6 plays, 35 yards total, 3 first downs, ended in punt, 2:51 total
Sixth drive: 11 plays, 58 yards total, 3 first downs, ended in FG, 5:02 total
Seventh drive: 6 plays, 47 yards, 2 first downs, ended on downs, 2:26 total

So one 5 minute drive for 3 points paired with zero other drives longer than 3 minutes in the half. 2 short drives following interceptions, both giving the offense the ball inside the Indy 30, one ending in a TD, the other ending in a FG after the offense managed to gain a whole 4 yards and eat a whopping minute and a half off the clock. Two punts and a fumble. That's how they "won" time of possession. By doing what amounts to nothing and getting the ball right back after quick Indy scores.

Hell, I think it could even be argued that the only reason they lost 45-44 rather than 45-34 (or worse) was the two interceptions. The offense may not have managed more than a FG in the 2nd half without them.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by temper11

HT, I never said that. I simply state pretty commonly known strategies that offenses (protect the ball) and defenses (prevent big plays) employ when way ahead in a game.

In the second half with the KC Chiefs enjoying a 4 TD lead, the offense did an average job accomplishing those goals and the defense did a terrible job accomplishing those goals.

It's right there in black and white what you said. Don't back away from it now.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by temper11

If the Chiefs can convince him that he is their guy - long term - in some other way than with a huge contract (assuming quality of play remains high) then I think he'd be happy to do a team friendly deal.

The report has been that Alex would gladly do a contract that doesn't approach the $100 million mark as long as it is for the long term. Something like 5 years $65 million would be great.

However, the issue is his agent. Tom Condon isn't in the business of helping teams with their cap number while keeping his clients on the payroll. He's in the business of gouging teams for as much money as he can squeeze out of them so he gets a bigger chunk of the change. Regardless of what his client says or wants, that's what he's going to do.

At this point, given Dorsey's poor negotiation resume the past year, I'm pretty certain we're not going to get the contract I described above. It's going to be far worse than that, I'm afraid. It might not hit $100 million, but it's not going to be good for this team and its long-term goals, that's for sure. It's going to mean almost certain death for Flowers and Hali next offseason, and probably a ton of other valuable veterans we'd like to keep such as DeVito, Avery, and Sean Smith. Those sacrifices have to be made if we want to keep Berry, Houston, and Alex Smith while Alex gets the money that Condon is going to screw us out of.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

It's right there in black and white what you said. Don't back away from it now.

In black and white I wrote,

"Turnover is awesome - absolutely. But Turnovers are not a primary goal of "Prevent Defense"."

Absolutely true. Not backing away from it in the slightest. My post does not anywhere even remotely come close to saying that I would prefer to give the turnover back to the Colts offense.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by temper11

In black and white I wrote,

"Turnover is awesome - absolutely. But Turnovers are not a primary goal of "Prevent Defense"."

Absolutely true. Not backing away from it in the slightest. My post does not anywhere even remotely come close to saying that I would prefer to give the turnover back to the Colts offense.

If the turnover is a better outcome, then the defense did it's job, right?

You're arguing ridiculous semantics. Just stop.

The defense created a turnover DEEP in Indy territory and the offense wasted the opportunity. That's a cold, hard fact. All of this "job of the prevent defense" crap is just that - crap.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by SNR

The report has been that Alex would gladly do a contract that doesn't approach the $100 million mark as long as it is for the long term. Something like 5 years $65 million would be great.

However, the issue is his agent. Tom Condon isn't in the business of helping teams with their cap number while keeping his clients on the payroll. He's in the business of gouging teams for as much money as he can squeeze out of them so he gets a bigger chunk of the change. Regardless of what his client says or wants, that's what he's going to do.

I've made this point in the past and was shouted down from folks that insist the client has the authority to do whatever deal he wants. I imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle (as most truths are) I just don't know where that line breaks between agent and client.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

If the turnover is a better outcome, then the defense did it's job, right?

You're arguing ridiculous semantics. Just stop.

The defense created a turnover DEEP in Indy territory and the offense wasted the opportunity. That's a cold, hard fact. All of this "job of the prevent defense" crap is just that - crap.

no... i'm not going to just stop just because you want me to. I wasn't judging the defense performance on that one play. I was judging the defense and offense play for the entire half.

In fact, I was most specifically referring to the performance of both AFTER that play, and the subsequent TD for the offense, as at that moment forward the Chiefs had a 4TD lead.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by temper11

no... i'm not going to just stop just because you want me to. I wasn't judging the defense performance on that one play. I was judging the defense and offense play for the entire half.

In fact, I was most specifically referring to the performance of both AFTER that play, and the subsequent TD for the offense, as at that moment forward the Chiefs had a 4TD lead.

I don't want you to stop. I asked you to stop because I was trying help you avoid looking like a fool.

By all means, go ahead and continue if you would like. It doesn't matter to me one way or another.

The simple fact is that you could pick any one of about a dozen plays and the Chiefs would have won the game. That's what happens when you lose by 1 point.

This team was built to be opportunistic. The offense, in particular, was built to capitalize on turnovers rather than move the ball up and down the field like Denver. The defense, in turn, isn't built to allow 150 yards a game. It's designed to disrupt and turn the ball over.

In that one instance, that's PRECISELY what the defense did. And the offense failed to do its job subsequently. There are people in this thread that said the defense just needed to get ONE STOP. The defense did that in quite possibly the best fashion there is. The only thing that would have been better would have been Abdullah returning the INT for a touchdown. So clearly, those people are wrong.

Asking them to convert a 1st and 10 at the Indy 28 into a TD isn't too much to ask. I'm 100% certain Andy Reid AND Alex Smith would agree with me.