Chiefs Alex Smith did, does, and will always suck. (part 2) - Page 22

Hammock Parties · 11:23 AM

Old thread is archived here.

BigCatDaddy · 12-17-2013, 04:08 PM

[QUOTE=DJ's left nut;10288068]Alternatively you could say:

In 09 and 10 he was just a pretty much meh QB. 80 passer rating, had some injury issues and then BAM. Harbaugh comes in and somehow "Fixed Alex Smith" in 2011 and Harbaugh it now this great QB wizard of a coach according to everyone. So his history of solid play is pretty recent and an argument could have been made that it was do to Harbaugh dialing back his attempts and reigning him in and based on the first 8 games of this season that looked much like that case as Alex reverted back to his 09 & 10 form.

So this resurgence in numbers is somewhat new and I'm a bit concerned that it also correlates with his dialing back in attempts in these blowouts. I've seen 2 games that gave me some optimism, but outside of that I have major questions about what Alex Smith really is.

I agree probably in the avg-above avg range, but are we talking 12, 15, 20? Big difference. So I just want to see a little more of a sample size when he asked to throw 35 times a game against a good team before I'm going to be sold.

I think there is still some mystery here.

Halfcan · 12-17-2013, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scott free

And for the love of God, i'm just so tired of hearing about all of the awful, terrible teams we beat, so therefore those wins mean nothing... that is the craziest sounding shit to me.

Every team has talent and/or good coaching even if just at the positional level, every bad team beats a good team, every single week of every single year... there isn't a SINGLE gimme game in the NFL, particularly when talking about division rival games.

The "he hasn't beaten anyone" line is absolutely maddening, there are no college teams in the NFL, every win counts... to me its 100% garbage.

Yep and the Chiefs took care of business. First team in NFL history to have 35 or more points in the first half in consecutive games.

duncan_idaho · 12-17-2013, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

This is exactly my point.

This is nuts. Its absolutely insane. The guy has a 65 game track record of being the exact same QB he's been in KC. If he goes out there and throws for 500 yards and kicks Manning's ass in the AFC Championship game HE'S NOT SUDDENLY A FRANCHISE QB!

He's the same guy he was in the 65 games prior who had a really good game. Likewise, if the guy goes and plays a bad game, he's not suddenly Matt Cassel.

Tying what you think about Alex Smith to a playoff outcome is just crazy. 1, 2 or 3 games in January do not carry more weight than 60+ games over 5 seasons prior. They just don't. Thinking that they do is exactly what got a team like the Jets married to Mark Sanchez. Realizing that they don't is exactly what led the Denver Broncos to Peyton Manning.

Smith shouldn't be able to 'win you over' in the playoffs. It shouldn't be that easy to change your mind. You should be willing/able to look at what he's done as an NFL starting QB for half a decade and use that track record to draw your conclusions as to his long-term value to this franchise.

That track record is pretty clear on its face and to me it shows a slightly above average NFL quarterback. Regardless of what happens in January, that's what he is.

I agree that he is basically a middle-of-the-pack NFL QB. Somewhere between "average starter" to "slightly above-average starter." I've been saying that since the day he was brought into KC, so that's not a problem.

We know he can win a shit-ton of regular-season games when he has a good team/great defense/good running game around him.

The question - that's important to me - is whether he can beat elite teams/playoff teams. Can he elevate when he has to? We've seen some positive signs in that regard (Chargers). We've seen some negative signs in that regard (Broncos x2).

If he beats some elite teams (or hell, even one elite team) while performing like he has the past 3-4 weeks, I'll believe he can elevate when necessary. If he plays at a high level while losing (see Chargers again) at, say, New England, I'll believe it.

I'll be fine with tying to him as more than a stop-gap. The trade will have been worth it, etc., etc.

duncan_idaho · 12-17-2013, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Alternatively you could say:

Alex Smith = 5 years of having a 90 passer rating, 7 yards/attempt and a 2-1 TD to INT ratio.

Smith's track record at this point is what it is. It's not as high a level as Mannings but it's no easier to discount. The guy has put together 5 years that, in aggregate, are as good as some of the 'elite' guys in this league but you still want to act like you can't trust 60+ nfl starts worth of data.

That's absurd. The guy's last 4 seasons average out to almost exactly what he's done this season. At some point you have to accept that as a baseline and stop bitching about who he's not. He's not Peyton Manning and he never will be. He is, however, exactly who he's been for the last 5 seasons.

I see years 1-2-3. Where are years 4 and 5?

Are you referring to 2009 and 2010, when he was in the low 80s? Or running an average over the past 5 years. Just curious.

BigCatDaddy · 12-17-2013, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JF08

BigCatDaddy is not nearly as bad as Clay, that is obvious. I do think he goes a bit too far in his "skepticism," but who am I to judge.

Clay, on the other hand, is just a troll and should be ignored.

BCD - honest question. Do you truly want Alex Smith to succeed? If he wins a playoff game, a Super Bowl, is named MVP, becomes "elite" - that will mean your "formula" for obtaining a great QB will have been wrong.

What is more important to you, your love of the Chiefs or your pride in being right?

You've listened to too many dumbasses here. I can assure you every critic of Alex's is as emotionally invested in the Chiefs winning as the "ball washers"

People just like to exaggerate shit in an attempt to make a point.

I'd love nothing more than to not have to bitch about the QB for the first time in about 8 years regardless of who it is or how they are aquired. Odds point to the drafting one in the 1st if a SB is your goal, but sometime the little ball bouncing on the roulette wheel does come up green I guess.

Regardless I still wouldn't stop looking for a QB in the draft based on even Alex Smith's best games though, sort of like what San Fran did.

duncan_idaho · 12-17-2013, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scott free

Be damned if i can find the post, but Duncan Idaho, i completely disagree... anytime you win a playoff game it says something good about your quarterbacks play.

Maybe he doesn't even throw a touchdown, but if you win it means he didn't make a critical mistake, see; Romo and Stafford this weekend.

A post like that tells me theres nothing that's going to sway your opinion of him, it sounds like a failsafe so that even if we win one, you can say "yeah we won, but it wasn't because of him".

There are a lot of QBs who have been carried to a playoff win or two by the roster around them. That doesn't necessarily mean the QB play was good.

You're wrong about what it would take to sway my opinion. It's sway-able. I know many don't agree with the amount of evidence I require to BELIEVE in Alex Smith as the Chiefs long-term QB, but I'm used to people thinking I require too much evidence to believe in something.

ChiefsCountry · 12-17-2013, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Trent Green and Alex are the only QB's in Chiefs history to have a perfect QB rating.

Alex completed 85% of his passes against the Fade-a Chiefs record.

But yeah he sucks-lol

Half of the completions were screens or dump offs to Charles. Lets not crow about it like it was an all time great quarterback performance.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-17-2013, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

This is exactly my point.

This is nuts. Its absolutely insane. The guy has a 65 game track record of being the exact same QB he's been in KC. If he goes out there and throws for 500 yards and kicks Manning's ass in the AFC Championship game HE'S NOT SUDDENLY A FRANCHISE QB!

He's the same guy he was in the 65 games prior who had a really good game. Likewise, if the guy goes and plays a bad game, he's not suddenly Matt Cassel.

Tying what you think about Alex Smith to a playoff outcome is just crazy. 1, 2 or 3 games in January do not carry more weight than 60+ games over 5 seasons prior. They just don't. Thinking that they do is exactly what got a team like the Jets married to Mark Sanchez. Realizing that they don't is exactly what led the Denver Broncos to Peyton Manning.

Smith shouldn't be able to 'win you over' in the playoffs. It shouldn't be that easy to change your mind. You should be willing/able to look at what he's done as an NFL starting QB for half a decade and use that track record to draw your conclusions as to his long-term value to this franchise.

That track record is pretty clear on its face and to me it shows a slightly above average NFL quarterback. Regardless of what happens in January, that's what he is.

So his long term value should be based solely on 65 regular season games?

That's absurd, and certainly not the criteria that other QB's are judged by.

Peyton Manning takes a beating here for his playoff record.

Matt Ryan takes a beating here for his playoff record.

People thought Eli Manning was hot garbage until he went out, put a team on his back and won two Lombardi Trophies.

I guess I don't understand why AS should be held to a different standard, or why he can't be expected to raise his game like Eli and others (Flacco?) have done.

The goal is to win playoff games, which allows you to be compete for Championships. Winning regular season games is nice, but it doesn't mean much if you can't line up against playoff calliber teams/QB's and win in January.

This just reeks of a "well, he's not elite, so you can't expect much in January" type of post.

And if we can't expect much in January, then to me, he has no long term value.

beach tribe · 12-17-2013, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Half of the completions were screens or dump offs to Charles. Lets not crow about it like it was an all time great quarterback performance.

Nobody has said anything like that.
It has been a steady high level of play on his part that has boosted confidence.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-17-2013, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

I agree that he is basically a middle-of-the-pack NFL QB. Somewhere between "average starter" to "slightly above-average starter." I've been saying that since the day he was brought into KC, so that's not a problem.

We know he can win a shit-ton of regular-season games when he has a good team/great defense/good running game around him.

The question - that's important to me - is whether he can beat elite teams/playoff teams. Can he elevate when he has to? We've seen some positive signs in that regard (Chargers). We've seen some negative signs in that regard (Broncos x2).

If he beats some elite teams (or hell, even one elite team) while performing like he has the past 3-4 weeks, I'll believe he can elevate when necessary. If he plays at a high level while losing (see Chargers again) at, say, New England, I'll believe it.

I'll be fine with tying to him as more than a stop-gap. The trade will have been worth it, etc., etc.

Beat me to it.

mschiefs1984 · 12-17-2013, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Half of the completions were screens or dump offs to Charles. Lets not crow about it like it was an all time great quarterback performance.

You haters talk about excuses yet you're full of them for when the Chiefs do well

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-17-2013, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

Nobody has said anything like that.
It has been a steady high level of play on his part that has boosted confidence.

Actually, that's exactly what Halfwit was implying - that "told you so" attitude because they guy threw 5 TD's without having 5 attempts more than 5 yards downfield.*

As if that "performance" proves any AS doubter "wrong".

*and before you think that's hyperbole, that's an actual stat I read yesterday.

**BigMeatballDave** · 12-17-2013, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Half of the completions were screens or dump offs to Charles. Lets not crow about it like it was an all time great quarterback performance.

It sucks to have a QB that makes few mistakes and takes what the D is giving.

I don't think Alex is anything special, but some of you cannot wait for an opportunity to tear him down.

JENKINSWINS · 12-17-2013, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

I guess if I thought that Smith had not developed into a much better QB than he was 4 years ago I would probably think just like you.
Fortunately It's obvious to me that he is a MUCH better player now.

And BTW. We have 15 years of tape of Manning choking in the playoffs even as recently as last season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mschiefs1984

Yet last week you were on Geno's nuts for beating Oakland

Damn bigpussycat stay getting burnt!

ChiefsCountry · 12-17-2013, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

So his long term value should be based solely on 65 regular season games?

That's absurd, and certainly not the criteria that other QB's are judged by.

Peyton Manning takes a beating here for his playoff record.

Matt Ryan takes a beating here for his playoff record.

People thought Eli Manning was hot garbage until he went out, put a team on his back and won two Lombardi Trophies.

I guess I don't understand why AS should be held to a different standard, or why he can't be expected to raise his game like Eli and others (Flacco?) have done.

The goal is to win playoff games, which allows you to be compete for Championships. Winning regular season games is nice, but it doesn't mean much if you can't line up against playoff calliber teams/QB's and win in January.

This just reeks of a "well, he's not elite, so you can't expect much in January" type of post.

And if we can't expect much in January, then to me, he has no long term value.

02-27-2013, 12:45 PM
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4690478	Alex Smith did, does, and will always suck. (part 2) Old thread is archived here. Last edited by DaFace; 12-17-2013 at 11:23 AM..
Posts: 277,964

12-17-2013, 04:08 PM	#316
BigCatDaddy The Beast Inside Your Head Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Casino cash: $1999122	[QUOTE=DJ's left nut;10288068]Alternatively you could say: In 09 and 10 he was just a pretty much meh QB. 80 passer rating, had some injury issues and then BAM. Harbaugh comes in and somehow "Fixed Alex Smith" in 2011 and Harbaugh it now this great QB wizard of a coach according to everyone. So his history of solid play is pretty recent and an argument could have been made that it was do to Harbaugh dialing back his attempts and reigning him in and based on the first 8 games of this season that looked much like that case as Alex reverted back to his 09 & 10 form. So this resurgence in numbers is somewhat new and I'm a bit concerned that it also correlates with his dialing back in attempts in these blowouts. I've seen 2 games that gave me some optimism, but outside of that I have major questions about what Alex Smith really is. I agree probably in the avg-above avg range, but are we talking 12, 15, 20? Big difference. So I just want to see a little more of a sample size when he asked to throw 35 times a game against a good team before I'm going to be sold. I think there is still some mystery here.
Posts: 25,868