Alex Smith did, does, and will always suck.

[Hammock Parties]

[OnTheWarpath15]

Gotta step away for a bit.

[GordonGekko]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

He was talking about rushing and passing I think.

But Smith has had 10 in the last 3 so..

Oh, well rushing included possibly. I'd like to see it happen because that means we probably win these two games.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by GordonGekko

Oh, well rushing included possibly. I'd like to see it happen because that means we probably win these two games.

Yeah I was adding his single rushing TD and rushing yards.

[GordonGekko]

Originally Posted by O.city

Yeah I was adding his single rushing TD and rushing yards.

It's actually a dynamic I haven't thought much of recently, why does AS with his well above average mobility only have one rushing TD this season? I feel there is some untapped potential there.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

That's the same treatment every other QB gets on this board, why not Alex?

Why would you use the decision making process of people who you are obviously not like minded with to form your own opinions?
Makes no sense, and seems very childish.

[Eleazar]

It seems like all the ink around here is spent discussion who is or is not a "franchise" QB. Some sort of mythical designation that some guys have and some don't.

You can even read threads where people talk about guys who are not "franchise QBs" but then are again later, like Philip Rivers. A couple of years ago, there would have been significant debate about Joe Flacco being a "franchise QB". Then he was most definitely was one. Now most people wouldn't be so sure.

I don't think the term has any meaning. Some guys we know are good enough to win the Super Bowl with because they've gotten there.

Some guys that nobody would consider a "franchise QB" were there. Jeff Hostetler won a super bowl. Brad Johnson won a super bowl. Trent Dilfer won a super bowl. Neil O'Donnell, Rex Grossman, Matt Hasselbeck, Jake Delhomme played in them.

Jim Kelly lost four of them. Was he not a "franchise QB"? We'd call him a choker or someone who can't win the big game on Chiefsplanet if he were playing today. He's in the hall of fame.

People used to post the same things about Peyton Manning.

I don't think the "franchise QB" title means anything. You are what you've done.

[NinerDoug]

Originally Posted by GordonGekko

It's actually a dynamic I haven't thought much of recently, why does AS with his well above average mobility only have one rushing TD this season? I feel there is some untapped potential there.

I hate to call him injury prone, but he has had some significant injuries over his career. Not sure you want to put him in that situation unnecessarily.

[-King-]

I just hate how some people on this forum talk about how high their standards are compared to everybody elses.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

If the guy is good enough to win 11+ games, why is it unrealistic to expect at least a playoff victory?

He is 29, in his prime, we brought him in to win which was what we told all year. Time to step up and do it when the lights are the brightest.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by -King-

I just hate how some people on this forum talk about how high their standards are compared to everybody elses.

"Some people are just happy with a bunch of regular season wins"

Here is a question I would like to ask again.

At the beginning of the season there were a bunch if numb nuts saying we could have gotten a QB just as good as Smith for far less.
And that we didn't get the best QB available.

You people still believe that?

And if so, Who?

[-King-]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

"Some people are just happy with a bunch of regular season wins"

Here is a question I would like to ask again.

At the beginning of the season there were a bunch if numb nuts saying we could have gotten a QB just as good as Smith for far less.
And that we didn't get the best QB available.

You people still believe that?

And if so, Who?

Dave Lane said said there's a big list of better QBs that were available. I'm still waiting on him to give me that list.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

This is again a straw man so many people create so they have nice easy arguments to make.

No, your goals aren't any 'loftier' than the folks that are pleased about an 11+ win season. We just recognize that sometimes reality intervenes and there's a pretty scarce supply of HoF quarterbacks available. We realize that only one team wins the SB every year and many others don't for reasons that have nothing to do with their Qb.

It's haughty bullshit. You believe yourselves to be more critical fans because 'we demand excellence', as though the rest of us aren't seeking the same. We'll always want the best QB we can get. The problem is that many of you just make the same wails every year "WE NEED A FRANCHISE QB!!!!" as though there's an infinite supply of them and/or everyone isn't out there trying to get one. It's a zero sum league where everyone is ruthlessly trying to beat everyone else. It's not as simple as just strolling to the QBMart and grabbing Andrew Luck.

You can be happy to have Alex Smith without being content in having an above average QB. You can enjoy winning 10-13 games in a season and still be pissed off that we didn't win a SB.

These are not the mutually exclusive ideas you so constantly paint them as in order to create an easy argument.

We're talking about a franchise that's drafted one quarterback in the first 3 rounds in ~30 years and you think the problem is people think they grow on trees?

I think the flip side to what you said is the "well, there's no Andrew Luck in this year's draft" from "the rest of us."

The truth of the matter is, as usual, somewhere in the middle... it's undeniable that the franchise has made very little effort to develop a quarterback and that overall, they seem pretty content with stop gap QBs who can rise to mediocrity, as opposed to taking a QB who's pretty much guaranteed to struggle for a year or three. It's been low risk/low reward for decades, and they've gotten what they've put into it.

It's not as simple as a trip to QBMart, and it's not as simple as waiting for the next Peyton Manning.... but, it is as simple as trying. They've had the same strategy for FORTY YEARS... and I don't think fans are asking too much if they tried once every few decades to do something different.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

"Some people are just happy with a bunch of regular season wins"

Here is a question I would like to ask again.

At the beginning of the season there were a bunch if numb nuts saying we could have gotten a QB just as good as Smith for far less.
And that we didn't get the best QB available.

You people still believe that?

And if so, Who?

This was actually mentioned again a few weeks back, I was going to ask exactly who those guys were but didnt want to get started on all of it again.


For the record regarding some of the other comments, I ****ing hate Rivers with a passion and dont want his ass on my team. It may be irrational hatred, but oh well.

Any of the other guys mentioned are fine by me though Ryan seems to be overrated IMO.

I think I stated before the season started that a playoff win should be the goal this season and was doable.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

That's the same treatment every other QB gets on this board, why not Alex?

I think any team that won 11 or 12 games and then lost in the first round would be considered to have had a disappointing end to the season. Whether or not it's the QBs fault depends on how the game played out.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

We're talking about a franchise that's drafted one quarterback in the first 3 rounds in ~30 years and you think the problem is people think they grow on trees?

I think the flip side to what you said is the "well, there's no Andrew Luck in this year's draft" from "the rest of us."

The truth of the matter is, as usual, somewhere in the middle... it's undeniable that the franchise has made very little effort to develop a quarterback and that overall, they seem pretty content with stop gap QBs who can rise to mediocrity, as opposed to taking a QB who's pretty much guaranteed to struggle for a year or three. It's been low risk/low reward for decades, and they've gotten what they've put into it.

It's not as simple as a trip to QBMart, and it's not as simple as waiting for the next Peyton Manning.... but, it is as simple as trying. They've had the same strategy for FORTY YEARS... and I don't think fans are asking too much if they tried once every few decades to do something different.

Do they have to do so immediately? Can they go get a competent starting QB and run with that guy for a bit? Maybe win a few games and keep banners from circling the stadium in the process?

The only constant in the period you're mentioning was Lamar Hunt. He's gone now. Clark made a mistake in his first set of hires. In his last set he brought in guys that absolutely share the preferred position that we should attempt to bring in and develop our own guy.

Andy Reid and a Ron Wolf disciple - you'll be hard pressed to find stronger proponents of a 'draft/develop the QB' school.

So maybe we should trust that they share your belief (and mine, as well as many others that like the Smith acquisition) but that they simply didn't see a player worth making that attempt this year.

Seem fair?