Warpath you never answered my questions, I'm sure you just missed them.
So here they are again.

First, If you could get that game from AS in every game for the next 5 years would you take it?

Second, If got that game from your Defense every game for the next 5 years would it take it?

Third, If you coaches managed games that way for the next 5 years would you take it?

Is that your final answer? Sure you have it right this time?

(I'll give you a hint - you don't.)

Regardless, and again...

a.) I was in the building, and Monty and I mentioned it several times. So you're basically calling us both liars.

b.) Not once in the 3rd quarter does the broadcast show the play clock, which happens when it hits 5 seconds.

Or, everyone can believe the guy that can't get his information straight, is leaving plays out of drives which count against the time elapsed, and doesn't understand that time elapsed isn't the end-all-be-all because you don't know how long each play took, nor how long it took the ball to be placed as ready for play.

I appreciate this little man crush you have where you follow me around and try desperately to disprove everything I post - but you're failing miserably.

Stick to Twitter updates.

NFL NETWORK just said CHIEFS ARE WANTING to EXTEND ALEX SMITH

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/playby...04011&period=3

I'll take espn over you any day.

Impossible scenario is impossible.

So you give absolutely no weight to the hundreds (yes that's an exaggeration) of good passes that were dropped that would have completely changed the face of each of those games? You give no consideration to the fact that the entire offense was learning a new system and that learning curve takes time? You give no consideration to the fact that a rookie was cutting his teeth on the offensive line? You give no consideration to the fact that KC line is one of the youngest in the league? You give no consideration to the fact that we were playing with a tight end and a full back that we plucked off the waiver wire that spent no time in camp?

You look at the low production of the first nine games and simply say: "Alex was average for the first nine.." Who do you think would have done better given all of those things? Or are you one of those folks who just think the QB has to throw up big numbers regardless of the circumstances? I know that if someone gave me a key board with the letter "e" and "s" missing, replaced "photoshop" with "MS Paint", tied one hand behind my back, and changed the language on my computer to Spanish, my performance would look average at best as well, but if I was still able to get the job done, it would nothing short of an f'ing miracle.

And, while Smith doesn't like the title, he really is a good game manager. When he knows the offense is going to have to elevate their game, he does that. Just as you saw in the later half of the season. I don't think the O just all of a sudden pulled their head out in week nine. They knew they were going to have to step it up and Smith started throwing the ball around more. Problem was, still way way way to many huge costly drops.

Dude, its a simple question. Really not that hard.

Where do these people come from?

It is a stupid question tailored to get the answer you want. it is an impossible scenario and worthless question.

Wow, you've really come around GoChiefs. New Year's resolution?

Why can't everyone admit this was a ****ing team loss. JFC That doesn't mean Alex didn't play lights out in the first half. That doesn't mean the defense didn't shit the bed in the second half. But here it the thing, the defense played lights out in the first half and Alex played average in the second half. The coaching was great in the first half and shitty in the second half.

No matter how you slice it, the team played poorly in the second half. Simple as that.

Yes, I want Alex extended. Yes, I like Alex. Yes, he is probably the best we can expect to get at this point.

but, i want Alex signed to a reasonable contract that is escapable after 3 years. Not Flacco and Cutler money.

In what way is tailored.

Its a simple question.

And that's the point you can't answer it they way you want.

Don't get mad at me because I'm right.

I'm the saying the should not extend him, at least not to those numbers.

Bottom line if you have a view point some asks a legitimate that you have no response to it's time to re-think your position.

You know it's ok to wrong.

I caught up... thanks again.

No QB is going to play like that game for 5 straight years.

No D is going to play like that game for 5 straight years.

No coaching staff is going to coach like that game for 5 straight years.

You question is designed so I will give you the answer you want me to say.

A simple question that is loaded to fit your argument, while desperately trying to avoid the fact that all 4 phases of the game (O/D/ST/Coaching) played a role in the loss.

But to give you an answer, no, I really don't think I'd be happy with an offense that plays lights out for a half of football, and then lays dormant for the other.

Nor would I be happy with a defense that plays lights out for a half (which everyone conveniently manages to forget happened) and then plays dormant for the other half.

I'd rather both sides of the ball be as balanced as possible - but you didn't bother to list that as an option, because it butchers your argument.