Alex Smith was not the problem Sunday, sorry haters.

[TigeRRUppeRRcut]

Despite the common thought here that Alex Smith held down the team Sunday, Smith's overall production to the team yesterday graded out very positive in 3 rankings:
Smith: QBR 94.1, QB rating 99, PFF 71.9
Winston: QBR 83.6, QB rating 97, PFF 50.7



https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro...-for-bucs-win/

"Smith gained positive expected points (EPA) on 77 percent of his plays on Sunday, the second-highest rate for a QB in a game this season (Dak Prescott, 83 percent versus Chicago in Week 3). Put simply, more than three-fourths of his plays contributed to the team’s scoring margin, given the context and situation." - http://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/p...s-excels-again

This is why we should use our brains instead of repeating the garbage fed to us by Mellinger and Teicher. If Smith only had 34 plays yesterday to do something with the ball and earns both a rushing and passing TD, a FG, to 1 INT (first red zone interception since 2013) and completes an outstanding 77% of passes ... we should probably focus on the real problem yesterday: The Defense. Who didn't show up and allowed Winston/Martin to hold the ball for 35 minutes, earn 24 first downs, and convert 68% of 3rd downs (league average is 40%).

Against the Bucs...
Alex Smith: 1 INT, 99 QB rating
Philip Rivers: 2 INTs, 80 QB rating
Russell Wilson: 2 INTs, 39 QB rating
Drew Brees: 3 INTs, 49 QB rating

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by OctoberFart

I told you guys. Why is it so hard for some of you to see? The high turnover ratio and riding a gimmick offense will fail soon enough.

Homers and Alex Smith fan boi's from 49ers are the only ones who believe Smith can win a Super Bowl.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by RippedmyFlesh

No points after halftime for three straight weeks.

“That’s my first time hearing that,” Chiefs quarterback Alex Smith said.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt...121679397.html

JFC.............

[jimidollar]

So, he's a bad QB and reeruned on top of that?

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Molitoth

Wins and Losses don't mean as much to me as the eye test.

That reminds me, need to get tickets to the eye test Super Bowl!!

[Opoponax]

Originally Posted by TigerUppercut

How many teams did Denver blow out on their way to the SB this year?
Defense wins rings.

Just because a thing is said over and over again doesn't make it true.

Think about this: starting in 2000, you can find just a small handful of teams in who can be said to have won it all based primarily on their defense.

The 2000 Ravens
The 2002 Bucs
The 2015 Donks
The 2012 Giants

And I'll throw in the 2014 Seahawks too.

The rest have had excellent to Hall of Fame quarterbacks. In other words, 2/3 of Superbowl winning teams have done it based primarily on the quality of their quarterback. And that list is a short one:

Brady
Rogers
Roethlisberg
Manning
Bledsoe

And except for Bledsoe, all those guys have been to more than one Super bowl.

If you go back and look at the entire Superbowl era, you'll see the same trend: a who's-who list of HOF quarterbacks sprinkled with some teams who won championships based primarily on their defense. Of course, there's room for debate. For example, the question of whether Terry Bradshaw would've developed into who he eventually became without that defense is a worthy debate. But he eventually did become a great player.

I don't really care to debate anything about Alex Smith in particular. I just hear the whole "defense wins championships" thing thrown around as if it's as true as gravity when in fact, it isn't. The more accurate way to put it is, "With enough excellent players, together with a great defensive coordinator, a defense can win a championship."

[Molitoth]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

That reminds me, need to get tickets to the eye test Super Bowl!!

Starring Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers or some other elite QB.

You won't be finding Alex Smith there.

[bobbything]

Originally Posted by Opoponax

Just because a thing is said over and over again doesn't make it true.

Think about this: starting in 2000, you can find just a small handful of teams in who can be said to have won it all based primarily on their defense.

The 2000 Ravens
The 2002 Bucs
The 2015 Donks
The 2012 Giants

And I'll throw in the 2014 Seahawks too.

The rest have had excellent to Hall of Fame quarterbacks. In other words, 2/3 of Superbowl winning teams have done it based primarily on the quality of their quarterback. And that list is a short one:

Brady
Rogers
Roethlisberg
Manning
Bledsoe

And except for Bledsoe, all those guys have been to more than one Super bowl.

If you go back and look at the entire Superbowl era, you'll see the same trend: a who's-who list of HOF quarterbacks sprinkled with some teams who won championships based primarily on their defense. Of course, there's room for debate. For example, the question of whether Terry Bradshaw would've developed into who he eventually became without that defense is a worthy debate. But he eventually did become a great player.

I don't really care to debate anything about Alex Smith in particular. I just hear the whole "defense wins championships" thing thrown around as if it's as true as gravity when in fact, it isn't. The more accurate way to put it is, "With enough excellent players, together with a great defensive coordinator, a defense can win a championship."

I mentioned this earlier but the narrative that "defense wins championships" isn't really that accurate. It's more the outlier than the norm. A complete team wins championships. And outside of the the Ravens, Bucs, and Broncos (2015), over the last two decades, the one common component to all the SB champions is a HOF QB. I'm not necessarily saying they're mutually exclusive, but sh*t...if simply going by the "defense wins championships" mantra actually worked as a formula, people would be building their teams from that side out.

The QB, for the most part, can't simply be serviceable. The QB has to make some plays. If this team is going to compete for a Super Bowl, Alex Smith will be called upon to make a big throw at an opportune time. There have been a few moments where Smith has stepped up at key times (Chargers come to mind...but I can't really think of another game. I suppose he hit a few key passes to run out the clock against the Falcons and Raiders), but he's had some huge gaffes too.

The bottom line is that he's not Manning or Brady or whoever. But that doesn't mean he's excused from tossing picks at the most inopportune time in games either. Late in the season, inside the 5 yard line, he simply cannot turn the ball over. Especially since his (supposed) greatest asset is his ability to NOT turn it over. The margin is far too thin with this team to overcome turnovers in the red zone. We need those points—even if it's just 3.

[FloridaMan88]

Originally Posted by OctoberFart

I told you guys. Why is it so hard for some of you to see? The high turnover ratio and riding a gimmick offense will fail soon enough.

It was good enough to beat your team (twice).

[retkim]

What I find the most frustrating in yesterday's loss is that I honestly think that this offence can easily put 21+ points on Titans defense in just 3 quarters. It gets to my nerves the so called smart/situational football. We didn't convert on 4&goal it was fine. Alex threw an INT in the red zone, we were still fine, playing a great football and just when we needed to execute we go conservative and punt the ball on numerous occasions. I'm pretty sure we would've won the game had they converted on that 2 point try.

[TigeRRUppeRRcut]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Homers and Alex Smith fan boi's from 49ers are the only ones who believe Smith can win a Super Bowl.

You're forgetting Vegas oddsmakers, fivethirtyeight, NYT, and 70% of this fan base also believe he can win it.

You and your miserable ilk don't speak for the rest of us

[RippedmyFlesh]

Oddsmakers what a stupid argument. Vegas will let you lose money on any team not mathematically eliminated .

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by gblowfish

Clark doesn't need hookers. His wife is a former Miss Kansas.
He does like to take treasure baths.

Meh, I think he screws more than his wife (and the fans)...

[TigeRRUppeRRcut]

Originally Posted by Opoponax

Just because a thing is said over and over again doesn't make it true.

Think about this: starting in 2000, you can find just a small handful of teams in who can be said to have won it all based primarily on their defense.

The 2000 Ravens
The 2002 Bucs
The 2015 Donks
The 2012 Giants

You're forgetting the Packers had the #2 ranked defense in 2010. Pittsburgh steelers had a formidable defense ranked #1 overall in 2008 allowing just 13.9 points a game, also won in 2006 with the #3 overall defense. Seahawks and Denver were #1 the years they won it.


You have your history completed messed up

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by TigerUppercut

How many teams did Denver blow out on their way to the SB this year?
Defense wins rings.

Yep... We're a lock! You betcha..

[RippedmyFlesh]

This defense is good. Good enough to win a sb but not good enough to carry a smith/dilfer so those comparisons are ridiculous.