Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 10270768)

The problem with giving up the two 2nds, the first one almost being a 1st, is that you are committing long term to him at that time no matter the contract situation.

Does anyone really think they gave up those two picks with the intention of Alex Smith only being a Chief for two years? Really? Oh yeah, that's right they are going to draft a Qb first round.

Swampland for sale here, step right up!

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 10270670)

I get what you're saying... but looking at the remaining schedule, that would include a win at home against the Colts, who are just 3-3 in their past 6 games and have been devastated by injuries on offense, and wins at Oakland and San Diego.

Losing any of those games would be a warning sign to me.

I'd rather not enter the playoffs at 13-3, just like you, for superstitious purposes.

Originally Posted by Cochise (Post 10270779)

If the season ended today, we'd be drafting at #28 overall.

Whom would you suggest we pick and then turn the franchise over to in week 1 next year?

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 10270785)

But here's the thing with W/L record as an evaluation tool - Smith played 3 of his absolute best games of the season in our 3 losses.

He played like a top 10 QB in those games and we lost because the defense wet itself.

What does that have to do with Smith? The guy did everything you could reasonably expect. He outplayed Manning in Arrowhead, IMO and was every bit Rivers' equal.

You really think we're improving as a football team by tossing that? Additionally, letting a QB play out his walk year sends a clear sign to the player and the team that you don't trust him. It creates a leadership crisis more often than not. Even when it works out (i.e. Flacco), it hurts the team through inflating his price tag.

Why do you need to see another year of Alex Smith? What can you possibly think you'll learn? Smith now has 3 straight years of doing the same thing - being a high end game manager that is capable of turning it up a little bit while taking very little off the table.

That's what you have - the end. If he wins the next 3 games, that won't change. If he loses the next 3 games, that won't change. None of your requests will change who the guy is.

And you're absolutely wrong that the guy hasn't done anything to prove he's not better than one of the 15-25th best QB options in the league. He's outplayed many of the guys you'd have put on that list ahead of him over the last 3 years. He's been better than Flacco, better than Manning, better than Kaepernick. He's nowhere near as flashy as those guys but damn is he smart with the ball and he's a very good leader.

You folks that are dismissing this out of hand are simply digging your heels in. If the Chiefs can get him signed to a reasonable deal they'd be fools not to. Even if they have to sign him for 6, everyone knows the first 3/4 is what matters. Moreoever, given the state of QBs in this league (God-awful), getting Smith signed to a reasonable contract where any signing bonus would accelerate onto the Chiefs cap in the event of a trade makes him a hell of a trade asset. If we do manage to get a young QB that is good enough to replace him, huzzah; we'll deal him.

If you let him play through his walk year he has no reason at all to extend without testing the market. Once that happens, his price will increase substantially. Additionally, are you really ready to go with Bray in that event? if so, that's just absurd - you've seen nothing to believe he's ready to play.

Letting an established QB with a clear track record play through his walk year is silly. He's not going to change in 2014.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 10270797)

Who knows how the QB class works out, but that might put them in position to take a QB who can be the guy down the road.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 10270748)

I'm sure you're exactly right about what they'll do in the draft in 2014. That's part for the course for KC...

I posted this earlier this year. Hopefully, someday it will no longer apply.

Step 1: Acquire another team's backup QB to be your new starter. Point to his potential and ability to be a leader and keep the team in games. Ignore his inability to WIN games.

Step 2: With 1st-round pick, insist there is no QB worthy of that high pick and that it is best to wait until later in the draft and get a similar QB at better value.
- 2A: After all worthwhile QBs go off the board between 1st and 2nd round picks, again point to value and draft BPA.
- 2B: Continue 2A until drafting a Ricky Stanzi/Pat Barnes in Round 5 or later

Step 3: Say you will wait until next year to draft a QB in the 1st and develop a franchise guy.

Step 4: Slog to somewhere between 7-10 wins and talk up how "competitive" your season was and how "close" the team is.

Step 5: When next year comes, watch in feigned dismay as all the "good" QBs go off the board before your pick. Sigh, sell "BPA available" and draft for that, saying "We're too close to winning something big to reach on a QB at this pick. Other needs must be addressed. We'll get a similar QB later at a better value."
- Step 5a: Again watch in dismay as no similar QBs are available by the next pick. Again draft BPA.
- Step 5B: Rinse and repeat 5A until eventually arriving at 2B.

Step 6: Talk up previously acquired backup QB, now-starter and how much talent you've added in the draft around him. Reference "weapons" and "chunks."

Step 7: Repeat Steps 5-6 for 2-3 more years, then reset at Step 1.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 10270785)

But here's the thing with W/L record as an evaluation tool - Smith played 3 of his absolute best games of the season in our 3 losses.

He played like a top 10 QB in those games and we lost because the defense wet itself.

What does that have to do with Smith? The guy did everything you could reasonably expect. He outplayed Manning in Arrowhead, IMO and was every bit Rivers' equal.

You really think we're improving as a football team by tossing that? Additionally, letting a QB play out his walk year sends a clear sign to the player and the team that you don't trust him. It creates a leadership crisis more often than not. Even when it works out (i.e. Flacco), it hurts the team through inflating his price tag.

Why do you need to see another year of Alex Smith? What can you possibly think you'll learn? Smith now has 3 straight years of doing the same thing - being a high end game manager that is capable of turning it up a little bit while taking very little off the table.

That's what you have - the end. If he wins the next 3 games, that won't change. If he loses the next 3 games, that won't change. None of your requests will change who the guy is.

And you're absolutely wrong that the guy hasn't done anything to prove he's not better than one of the 15-25th best QB options in the league. He's outplayed many of the guys you'd have put on that list ahead of him over the last 3 years. He's been better than Flacco, better than Manning, better than Kaepernick. He's nowhere near as flashy as those guys but damn is he smart with the ball and he's a very good leader.

You folks that are dismissing this out of hand are simply digging your heels in. If the Chiefs can get him signed to a reasonable deal they'd be fools not to. Even if they have to sign him for 6, everyone knows the first 3/4 is what matters. Moreoever, given the state of QBs in this league (God-awful), getting Smith signed to a reasonable contract where any signing bonus would accelerate onto the Chiefs cap in the event of a trade makes him a hell of a trade asset. If we do manage to get a young QB that is good enough to replace him, huzzah; we'll deal him.

If you let him play through his walk year he has no reason at all to extend without testing the market. Once that happens, his price will increase substantially. Additionally, are you really ready to go with Bray in that event? if so, that's just absurd - you've seen nothing to believe he's ready to play.

Letting an established QB with a clear track record play through his walk year is silly. He's not going to change in 2014.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 10270797)

I would guess the Chiefs end up drafting no lower than 24th (where they would slot with a first-round playoff loss, right?). Who knows how the QB class works out, but that might put them in position to take a QB who can be the guy down the road.

Originally Posted by Cochise (Post 10270812)

Right, so, you agree that there's no one who we'll be in a position to draft that can take the franchise over immediately.

So there's nothing wrong with extending Alex Smith for a couple years beyond next year, so we don't end up with a rookie and Daniel as our only options.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 10270820)

I'm not going to agree with Alex Smith playing like a top 10 QB in each of the past three games.

At Denver? Top 10 QBs don't complete less than 50 percent of their passes for 5.2 YPA. A few drops don't make up for 24 incompletions and a weak offensive effort against a mediocre-at-best defense.

He did play like a top 10 guy against San Diego (though it should be noted his performance against that defense was pretty similar to what the league has done against it this season).

And outplay Manning at Arrowhead? I think only a Chiefs fan would say.

Why do I need to see another year of Alex Smith? Because he has shown me nothing that makes me think he's better than what he was in San Francisco. Which is not good enough. It places him squarely in the middle of the starting QB pecking order, and it's damn hard to win anything of consequence when that's the case.

There's time to wait. At least get through this year's draft and FA period before signing the extension. If they get through those without acquiring another QB, I wouldn't squawk at a modest extension for Smith, for the reasons you state. Something that extends him at a similar salary to what he's making now would be fine.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 10270783)

Think that? No. But if we're talking about "Should" and "Deserve" in this thread...

It's perfectly reasonable and logical to say you prefer they give an extension ONLY if Alex Smith proves he deserves it (and proves he CAN be a QB who LEADS a team to playoff wins).

Even a few guys who are big Smith defenders (Boss Chief, scott free) are on that bandwagon.

I am pretty sure about what's coming (drafting pieces around Alex, maybe taking a flyer on a guy in the middle or late rounds). Doesn't mean I have to like it or accept it.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 10270829)

So we're back to this shit again?

"Who cares if the guy sucks, it means are record will be bad and we'll get to draft another one!!!"

Or it means that we'd take Geno Smith and suck for another 5 years. And this is from someone that liked Geno.

How the hell can anyone, after experiencing the 3 years we just experienced, truly be in favor of falling back into that morass? Moreover, it's a shitload easier for us to say when it's not our careers that would waste away - tell that to Hali, Johnson, Flower and Charles - we owe it to those guys to field a competitive football team.

QBs like Wilson, Glennon and Foles are falling further in the draft and becoming more and more common. The idea that we should just keep throwing haymakers at the QB position and not give a shit if it leaves us winning 4 games/season until we finally get our guy (if we ever get our guy; many teams haven't) is just absurd.