vvvvvDelusionalvvvvv

So basically, if we win, Alex is golden.

If we lose, Alex is still golden because no blame can ever be attached to him.

Got it.

Heh, gotcha... sorry... the bar for intelligent conversation has been set so low in this thread... LMAO

Yes, a great QB can cover up a lot of warts... bad offensive line, bad run game, an entire defense. To cover up an average or bad QB, you have to be really good in several other areas... a truly elite defense, elite offensive line/RB/offensive scheme, etc.

I think it's a bit of both. Defense is playing lights out and alex doesn't have to be aaron rodgers yet, but look at where this team was last year...2 and effing 14. We just tied our season win total last year. We obviously don't have a great offensive line, our receivers are average at best, and charles can't get the run game going. Yet, we're winning. Alex is doing a bit of carrying the team as well. Wait a minute....that's right....it's a team game. EVERYONE should take partial responsibility for a win or loss. Qbs just have to take on a bigger portion

Since you seem particularly obsessed with this topic, allow me to ask what no one seems willing to answer.

Why are so many acting as if this offense has maxed out? Hit their ceiling? Reached their top gear in week 2?

Does anyone REALLY believe that this is as good as this new KC offense will get? They must, because all I keep reading is..

"well, they will need more from this quarterback if they are going to play the good teams, and make noise in the playoffs"

So after working together thoughout these weeks, do people really think they won't gel better and be.. better? If so, then why even say such a thing as the italicized? other than to basically act unhappy that the team might actually be better than they thought, and that hurts their assessment ego.

Furthermore, this notion of a 2-14 team... suddenly becoming a 9 or 10 win team... and some people say what? "it's not enough, if they get bounced out of the playoffs in rd 1!"

For real? So it is all or nothing in one year from being the worst to the best?

WTF kind of spoiled entitlement is that???? :doh!:

People are expecting that kind of output, because that is what the FO is selling. Rather than stake their claim with a fresh qb to be groomed, they made a statement by getting a veteran qb that they expect to win now.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!

I've answered that question several times... it has little to do with the first two weeks. Alex Smith has been the same quarterback for 8 years. Two games isn't going to sway my opinion. If he does something to change my opinion when given the opportunity, great.

The main reason people are pointing it out is because it's pretty crazy to say the Chiefs have fixed their QB issue, it's a huge upgrade, etc; after 2 games. Again, it has little to do with the first two weeks or even the next 14... but, as far as my own opinion is concerned, there's 20 years of watching retread QBs, 20 years of seeing the same strategy regarding the QB position, and 8 years of Alex Smith stats backing up my opinion that he is who he is and he won't be the guy to lead the Chiefs deep into the playoffs. I don't care if I'm right or wrong... and obviously I hope I'm wrong. WTF would I have an ego about a football opinion? LOL.

It's not spoiled entitlement and no is complaining... again, we're just pointing out that after so many years of watching the same QB strategy fail, we're going to give it more than 2 weeks before we're sold... and again, there's a lot of proof out there that you need an elite QB to win in this league, and a lot of proof that Alex Smith is not that guy.

And if there is spoiled entitlement, I'd point to the hundreds of dollars, hours spent, etc; on a shitty product. There's so much talk these days about fan loyalty, and Chiefs fans will flock to Arrowhead at the mere thought of a competitive team... you don't think that kind of loyalty entitles fans to the best product possible? Bullshit. People have been spending thousands of dollars and what amounts to weeks and months of time over several years, just to have the wool pulled over their eyes every few years so they can keep spending money on a mediocre product. Screw that. I'm not getting excited over not being the most terrible team in the NFL, and I'm sure as hell not running out to buy tickets. So yeah, if they want $100+/game and hours of my day, the least they could do is wake the **** up and do what it takes to win some hardware in this league.

So before we continue... do you put zero stock in a QB that has been developed into a consistent scheme for 6 years... with many of the same targets to throw to... VS the poor quarterback having to deal with a new system nearly every year of his developing years and then having to learn yet another with all new players around him. (and every damn offensive person learning something new)

... is there any wonder why the latter QB is not wowing you? Or his prior stats each new year not remarkably convincing for you?

Or are you that person that feels the QB should be able to dazzle no matter what the circumstances around him?

The dude had 6 different offensive coordinators (each with different playbooks), 3 different head coaches, and a mediocre roster in his first 6 seasons. Hard to blame him for being labeled a bust. Since 2011, he has the second highest winning percentage behind Peyton.

Alex Smith has actually not been the same quarterback for 8 years. He's been someone pretty different for the last two years.

He's not elite, and if you need an elite QB to win, as you say, then probably 26 or 27 teams out of 32 are not going to win. (Not sure how you define "win" either, SB?) There are a few "elite" QBs, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning. If that's your standard, well, get in line, because 90% of the football fans in this country want the same thing.

Edit: Based on recent performance, I would put Russell Wilson in that category, and even CK7, despite the reaming last night. But still, there are just not enough "elite" QBs to go around. But some teams find a way to win, despite not having an elite QB: The G-Men, for example. (Sorry, but Eli is not elite, IMO).

Of course it matters, there are countless variables. Again, I've watched the Chiefs and other teams go through retread QBs for years and my opinion is mostly from those years of observation. The rest comes from simply comparing Smith's stats to those other QBs.

One nice thing about Carl Peterson and Marty was stability, and shortly after Herm came along my first thought was "yeah, this guy isn't going to work," followed by "but, hopefully this doesn't start a trend of new HC/coordinators every few years. So, for the sake of everyone involved, hopefully this is a new era of stability... but, I don't know if Smith has that long to prove himself. He could be different, and he could improve above and beyond what the past 8 years have shown, and that would be great... but, once again, there's no proof to show he will, regardless of who's at fault.

And that's how it is now, right? There are probably ~6 teams a year that can win 11+ games, ~6 teams that can't win more than 5, and everyone else is mediocre.

First and foremost, I want the Chiefs to try, which they've done once in 40 years (through the draft, that is).

Alex has been the same QB for 8 years. LOL I don't know where to even begin on that one. It's too full of fail.

A reasonable enough position for a fan. (Of course, I would want the stop-gap in the mean time too.)

Will someone please define the lines of Elite, Good, Average, Bad, Beyond bad QB's. Is it a QB rating thing...stats thing...championships won thing...combo of the above? Is anyone willing to to make make that definition?