Alex Smith Extension Talks

[Jimmya]

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

[OldSchool]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

The problem is that he's about to be paid like the second category.

Every starting caliber QB is going to get paid like that. Just look at the deals that were tossed at Romo, Cutler, etc. who haven't done anything in this league and yet are being paid like they already have a couple of Super Bowls under their belts. It's the nature of the league right now.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by OldSchool

Every starting caliber QB is going to get paid like that. Just look at the deals that were tossed at Romo, Cutler, etc. who haven't done anything in this league and yet are being paid like they already have a couple of Super Bowls under their belts. It's the nature of the league right now.

Romo and Cutler.

So guys who aren't worth the money invested in them when you consider their abject lack of postseason success.

Wonderful.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

The problem is that he's about to be paid like the second category.

The QBs that don't get paid like that play in Oakland.

[OldSchool]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Romo and Cutler.

So guys who aren't worth the money invested in them when you consider their abject lack of postseason success.

Wonderful.

Yup, except Alex Smith has proven that he can actually perform well in the play offs on two different teams and in two different systems now.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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 goes both ways though. Nobody credits the KC's offense for holding Indy to 10pts in the first half either. Everyone is quick to point out that the defense is partly responsible for some of the scoring since they caused turnovers that led to points. Then isn't it also true that the offense is partly responsible for never putting the defense in a bad position with their backs up against the wall? People like to rip on Smith for his conservative play but being smart with the football means that we didn't gift the Colts offense any points does it not? If our defense gets credit for giving our offense points, shouldn't our offense get credit for not gifting points away?

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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.

When you have a 38 to 10 lead in the second half, punting is not a negative. In order to complete the insanely unlikely come from behind win (I think the likelihood was somewhere in the 1.5% chance of winning) the KC offense was either going to need to turn the ball over 5 times or the KC defense would literally need to just lay down on the field - or a combination of the two. The offense committed only one turnover near midfield. The Colts had to score 4 more TD's from 80 or more yards and they had to do it insanely fast as the Chiefs still possessed the ball 5 more minutes than did the Colts in the second half. The likelihood of scoring that many TD's from that distance and not even win, let alone dominate, in Time of Possession is almost impossible to comprehend. You can say that punting is a negative possession, but in that situation you'd usually be wrong. When you have that big of a lead usually the only thing that can beat you is yourself and making costly costly turnovers.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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.

Ok... but in the first half, you have to take your chances - it was still a ball game in the first half. Charles goes down, you have to run with Davis and hope for the best because you have to execute your offense. In the second half with the huge lead, as stated in previous post, you just don't want to kill yourself with costly turnovers that lead to easy points. Davis has had a history of coughing up the football. So with the huge lead, why risk continuing to hand it off to Davis? You keep the ball in Smith's hands because you know he can be trusted to protect the football. You can trust that Smith understands the situation and will eat the ball or throw it away unless the he is damn near certain the play will succeed. Conventional wisdom is that a punt in these situations is not a bad thing - you just can't afford turnovers. That's why they generally took the ball out of Davis's hands and stuck with a conservative short passing game, believing they'd already put enough on the board to win.

[TripleThreat]

Originally Posted by temper11

Ok... but in the first half, you have to take your chances - it was still a ball game in the first half. Charles goes down, you have to run with Davis and hope for the best because you have to execute your offense. In the second half with the huge lead, as stated in previous post, you just don't want to kill yourself with costly turnovers that lead to easy points. Davis has had a history of coughing up the football. So with the huge lead, why risk continuing to hand it off to Davis? You keep the ball in Smith's hands because you know he can be trusted to protect the football. You can trust that Smith understands the situation and will eat the ball or throw it away unless the he is damn near certain the play will succeed. Conventional wisdom is that a punt in these situations is not a bad thing - you just can't afford turnovers. That's why they generally took the ball out of Davis's hands and stuck with a conservative short passing game, believing they'd already put enough on the board to win.

If we are talking about the loss to Indy. I cant even go back to that time in history.. Sht was painful

[temper11]

Originally Posted by BossChief

It's not all Bowes fault, but he did say in an interview that he didnt give full effort to get his feet in bounds because he was afraid that would worsen his injury.

That quote pissed everyone off, I think.

I can't really blame people here... you point the toe and singlehandedly you end 20+ years of agony for an entire city. A city that just paid you enough money that, should the field be littered with landmines, you still point your damn toe and hand that city a playoff win. Make an effort to point your damn toe. Just make the damned effort!

[temper11]

Originally Posted by TripleThreat

If we are talking about the loss to Indy. I cant even go back to that time in history.. Sht was painful

we are... and you are right, no need to revisit it and point fingers. (ignore my posts above ) Team loss. Painful team loss - best to just leave it at that and move on.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by temper11

Ok... but in the first half, you have to take your chances - it was still a ball game in the first half. Charles goes down, you have to run with Davis and hope for the best because you have to execute your offense. In the second half with the huge lead, as stated in previous post, you just don't want to kill yourself with costly turnovers that lead to easy points. Davis has had a history of coughing up the football. So with the huge lead, why risk continuing to hand it off to Davis? You keep the ball in Smith's hands because you know he can be trusted to protect the football. You can trust that Smith understands the situation and will eat the ball or throw it away unless the he is damn near certain the play will succeed. Conventional wisdom is that a punt in these situations is not a bad thing - you just can't afford turnovers. That's why they generally took the ball out of Davis's hands and stuck with a conservative short passing game, believing they'd already put enough on the board to win.

You can try to rationalize that as 'conservative offense' all you want, but I think the carriage turned back into a pumpkin after halftime. The first half was the aberration. The second half was the offense we saw for most of 2013. Things leveled out, returned to normal, they were running the same plays it just wasn't working anymore, not the way it had in that freaky-deaky magical first half. Indianapolis beat them with adjustments on both sides of the ball.

[RippedmyFlesh]

Originally Posted by jd1020

I don't see how the loss of down is too severe.

Intentional grounding is only called when a QB throws the ball, from inside the pocket, to the middle of nowhere to avoid a sack. If he doesn't throw the ball he loses the yards and the down is lost. Seems pretty fair to me.

I agree and also think this may be a factor to having a mobile qb that I had not considered in the past. Still prefer a pocket passer to a mobile qb.

[007]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

I can't help but laugh that this argument is still going. It was a damn team loss but nooooooo, the O was just perfect for 32.5 minutes. Forget about the other 27.5 minutes.

[Jakemall]

Originally Posted by Guru

I can't help but laugh that this argument is still going. It was a damn team loss but nooooooo, the O was just perfect for 32.5 minutes. Forget about the other 27.5 minutes.

No offense is perfect for 60 minutes against a play-off team. When was the last time you saw an offense score 80+ points in the play-offs?

That's what people making this argument are asking for.

[007]

Originally Posted by Jakemall

No offense is perfect for 60 minutes against a play-off team. When was the last time you saw an offense score 80+ points in the play-offs?

That's what people making this argument are asking for.

Nobody is calling for 80+points. Just that one FG that we couldn't accomplish on several stalled drives.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

You can try to rationalize that as 'conservative offense' all you want, but I think the carriage turned back into a pumpkin after halftime. The first half was the aberration. The second half was the offense we saw for most of 2013. Things leveled out, returned to normal, they were running the same plays it just wasn't working anymore, not the way it had in that freaky-deaky magical first half. Indianapolis beat them with adjustments on both sides of the ball.

Our offense wasn't normal the second half. Andy Reid went into a shell and became insanely conservative. And it doesn't help that we downgraded from an MVP calibre running back to a 3rd stringer.