Alex Smith Extension Talks

[Jimmya]

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

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by jd1020

A realistic view of the WHOLE game is acknowledging that both the offense and defense were dogshit in the 2nd half.

Repped.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by PGM

4 years 60 million

That is exactly what I was thinking
Posted via Mobile Device

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by jd1020

A realistic view of the WHOLE game is acknowledging that both the offense and defense were dogshit in the 2nd half.

You don't like Alex. That is what this boils down to.

When the offense produces 44 points without its best player, and still loses. The only blame is on the D, because the O clearly did it's job.

If the Chiefs' QB were someone you really liked, your view would be different.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by BCD

You don't like Alex. That is what this boils down to.

When the offense produces 44 points without its best player, and still loses. The only blame is on the D, because the O clearly did it's job.

If the Chiefs' QB were someone you really liked, your view would be different.

The offense still has to take blame. They had some shit drives in the second half
Posted via Mobile Device

[kccrow]

I'm with BCD. When the O scores 44 and you lose, then its on the defense. I don't give a flyin **** what bullshit story someone comes up with to the contrary.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

The offense still has to take blame. They had some shit drives in the second half
Posted via Mobile Device

Not really.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by BCD

If the Chiefs' QB were someone you really liked, your view would be different.

No it wouldn't be. But feel free to be ignorant.

That offense sucked in the 2nd half. I wouldn't care if it was ****ing Brady who was the QB of the Chiefs. If all he could manage was 1 drive for 3 points in a half and wasn't able to stop the bleeding I'd be saying the same damn thing.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Messier

Not really.

Really. How many points did the offense score?
Posted via Mobile Device

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by BCD

You don't like Alex. That is what this boils down to.

When the offense produces 44 points without its best player, and still loses. The only blame is on the D, because the O clearly did it's job.

If the Chiefs' QB were someone you really liked, your view would be different.

Most of the blame lies with the defense. But the D also deserves credit for setting up 17 of those points with short fields after turnovers.

The offense played flawlessly in the first half, then stalled out in the second half, leaving the door cracked open for the Colts.

Some of that is on the injuries the O suffered. But it shares part of the blame as well. It was not flawless.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

The offense still has to take blame. They had some shit drives in the second half
Posted via Mobile Device

I love how the offense takes no blame for shitting their pants in the second half, and the defense gets no credit for giving the offense the ball/short fields in the first half and beginning of the second half.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by jd1020

That offense sucked in the 2nd half. I wouldn't care if it was ****ing Brady who was the QB of the Chiefs. If all he could manage was 1 drive for 3 points in a half and wasn't able to stop the bleeding I'd be saying the same damn thing.

I agree with you. There were mitigating reasons for it, namely injuries and playcalling, but it isn't at all unfair to say that the 2nd half offense fell apart in a way eerily similar to the collapse of the 2nd half defense. As you mentioned, the only reason the Chiefs even scored a TD in the half was the defense handing the offense the ball inside the 20 to start the half. They couldn't do anything on their own after that. And the only reason nobody's talking about it is that the defense managed to be worse. We needed an answer in the worst way when Indy went on their run and it just never happened. And saying that in no way excuses the defense. It's just acknowledging that it's a team game and collectively they didn't do enough to win, even if the greatest onus lies with the d.

It always strikes me odd, too, that nobody ever acknowledges the defense's part in the 38-10 lead (including interceptions on consecutive passes just before the collapse began) but that's another thread.

This is what happened that ugly day: the Colts start to move the ball, score their first TD of the 2nd half and then Smith fumbles. Negative for the defense, negative for the offense. The Colts score another TD, the Chiefs punt. Negative for the defense, negative for the offense. Luck throws his 3rd pick of the game and the Chiefs get a FG. Personally I consider a FG in that situation a failure, but I'll call that a positive/positive sequence. Colts score another TD, Chiefs punt. Negative, negative. Colts score yet another TD, making it a 3-point game, Chiefs finally manage a drive but only get a FG and a 6-point lead, which everyone on earth knew meant they'd lose by 1. Negative, negative, in my opinion. The Colts score the winning TD, and the Chiefs turn it over on downs. Game over.

Total team failure.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I agree with you. There were mitigating reasons for it, namely injuries and playcalling, but it isn't at all unfair to say that the 2nd half offense fell apart in a way eerily similar to the collapse of the 2nd half defense. As you mentioned, the only reason the Chiefs even scored a TD in the half was the defense handing the offense the ball inside the 20 to start the half. They couldn't do anything on their own after that. And the only reason nobody's talking about it is that the defense managed to be worse. We needed an answer in the worst way when Indy went on their run and it just never happened. And saying that in no way excuses the defense. It's just acknowledging that it's a team game and collectively they didn't do enough to win, even if the greatest onus lies with the d.

It always strikes me odd, too, that nobody ever acknowledges the defense's part in the 38-10 lead (including interceptions on consecutive passes just before the collapse began) but that's another thread.

This is what happened that ugly day: the Colts start to move the ball, score their first TD of the 2nd half and then Smith fumbles. Negative for the defense, negative for the offense. The Colts score another TD, the Chiefs punt. Negative for the defense, negative for the offense. Luck throws his 3rd pick of the game and the Chiefs get a FG. Personally I consider a FG in that situation a failure, but I'll call that a positive/positive sequence. Colts score another TD, Chiefs punt. Negative, negative. Colts score yet another TD, making it a 3-point game, Chiefs finally manage a drive but only get a FG and a 6-point lead, which everyone on earth knew meant they'd lose by 1. Negative, negative, in my Total team failure.

Great objective post right here.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by milkman

I get that it's football 101, though I think that it has become an atiquated formula for today's NFL.

But that wasn't the point.

The point was, and is, that it wasn't Alex Smith that went conservative in the second half.

I hear ya, but I have a hard time faulting Reid, he figured all they really had to do offensively is avoid costly turnovers. By the time he realized fate wasn't on his side, it was too late and too many of his starters were on the bench or play in hurt.

[BeeHo]

99% blame to Defense. 1% offense.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by temper11

I hear ya, but I have a hard time faulting Reid, he figured all they really had to do offensively is avoid costly turnovers. By the time he realized fate wasn't on his side, it was too late and too many of his starters were on the bench or play in hurt.

I've never really bought into the idea that they went conservative after halftime. Smith threw the same number of passes in the 2nd half that he threw in the first half (23). The team ran the ball twice as many times before halftime (21 for 110 yards) than it did after (11 for 40), and you could attribute that to injury except for the fact that Knile Davis didn't go down until there were a bit under 10 minutes to go in the game, meaning he only carried the ball 6 times in 20 minutes of play (after a dozen carries in 25 minutes in the first half). If anything, I think it could be argued they didn't go conservative enough.