Covitz:Alex Smith will play entire first half of Sunday’s preseason game

[milkman]

Originally Posted by temper11

This year, the Chiefs will be as good as the Oline and Defense allows them to be in my opinion. I don't think Smith is going to come out and sling it all over the field as many here hope that he will do. I think he will stick mostly to what has given him a lot of recent success - playing smart football. I think he will play as conservative or as aggressive as the game dictates. I think there will be marginal improvement with the upgrade to the TE position and the potential upgrade of DAT over McCluster. Jamaal will be Jamaal. Slight improvements or step-backs everywhere else in the skill positions, nothing major.

Offense success will depend on the oline. If the line is folding every play then nothing else matters much. If the offense IS successful, will the defense be successful enough against really tough offensive opponents to translate to wins. Can't wait to find out.

What you are describing is a playing not to lose approach, which is how I've descibed his play.

We, as Chiefs fansn learned, or should have learned, in the 90s that approach is a certain path to ultimately losing.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by milkman

What you are describing is a playing not to lose approach, which is how I've descibed his play.

We, as Chiefs fansn learned, or should have learned, in the 90s that approach is a certain path to ultimately losing.

I respect that opinion, but he's done a lot of winning recently for someone who is playing not to lose. From my perspective, he takes necessary risks, not unnecessary ones. That isn't playing not to lose, that is playing to win.

Prevent D is playing not to lose. Playing press coverage with a lead, but not jumping routes is playing to win without taking unnecessary risks.

[Mav]

Originally Posted by temper11

I respect that opinion, but he's done a lot of winning recently for someone who is playing not to lose. From my perspective, he takes necessary risks, not unnecessary ones. That isn't playing not to lose, that is playing to win.

Prevent D is playing not to lose. Playing press coverage with a lead, but not jumping routes is playing to win without taking unnecessary risks.

While what you say is true, if he became just slightly more aggressive he would become a much better qb. That's what a lot of people are saying

[temper11]

Originally Posted by Mavericks Ace

While what you say is true, if he became just slightly more aggressive he would become a much better qb. That's what a lot of people are saying

More aggressive than what? The first half of the season in which the defense was killing weaker teams, or the second half of the season in which the defense was getting rolled? I thought he played very aggressively through both of the Denver games the San diego game and the playoff game. It was not needed in the Raiders game or the Redskins game. Nor do I think it is unrealistic to believe that the regular season Colts game was a completely watered down offense due to the fact that they didn't want to show their hand in a meaningless game when they were likely to face the same team in a few weeks in the playoffs.

Do you think he was not aggressive enough in the second half of the season?

[RobBlake]

Originally Posted by temper11

More aggressive than what? The first half of the season in which the defense was killing weaker teams, or the second half of the season in which the defense was getting rolled? I thought he played very aggressively through both of the Denver games the San diego game and the playoff game. It was not needed in the Raiders game or the Redskins game. Nor do I think it is unrealistic to believe that the regular season Colts game was a completely watered down offense due to the fact that they didn't want to show their hand in a meaningless game when they were likely to face the same team in a few weeks in the playoffs.

Do you think he was not aggressive enough in the second half of the season?

precisely this. LIke the raiders game. People actually complained they gave dump offs to charles... it worked? lol

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by Mavericks Ace

While what you say is true, if he became just slightly more aggressive he would become a much better qb. That's what a lot of people are saying

The folks knocking him here are not exactly known for being correct on evaluating QBs.

[Mav]

Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball

The folks knocking him here are not exactly known for being correct on evaluating QBs.

I was referring to myself.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by temper11

I respect that opinion, but he's done a lot of winning recently for someone who is playing not to lose. From my perspective, he takes necessary risks, not unnecessary ones. That isn't playing not to lose, that is playing to win.

Prevent D is playing not to lose. Playing press coverage with a lead, but not jumping routes is playing to win without taking unnecessary risks.

Bottom line, playing not to lose wins you a lot of games.
The Chiefs of the 90s won more games than all but 3 teams.

Great crap.
3 playoff wins to show for it.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by milkman

Bottom line, playing not to lose wins you a lot of games.
The Chiefs of the 90s won more games than all but 3 teams.

Great crap.
3 playoff wins to show for it.

It believe it was 1 team, the 49ers.

People forget that luck does play a huge roll in games between evenly matched teams.

The reason is nobody wants to believe something like luck which they can't control will determine an outcome

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

It believe it was 1 team, the 49ers.

People forget that luck does play a huge roll in games between evenly matched teams.

The reason is nobody wants to believe something like luck which they can't control will determine an outcome

When you lose as consistently in the playoffs as Marty did, there's more than luck involved.

Playing not to lose leads ultimately to losing.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by milkman

When you lose as consistently in the playoffs as Marty did, there's more than luck involved.

Playing not to lose leads ultimately to losing.

We just fundamentally disagree on the point that playing conservative, smart football, when conservative, smart football is appropriate, is "playing not to lose". No worries. Rock on Milk!

[007]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

It believe it was 1 team, the 49ers.

People forget that luck does play a huge roll in games between evenly matched teams.

The reason is nobody wants to believe something like luck which they can't control will determine an outcome

IF they saw the football bounce right back into Luck's hands they would believe in luck.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

It believe it was 1 team, the 49ers.

People forget that luck does play a huge roll in games between evenly matched teams.

The reason is nobody wants to believe something like luck which they can't control will determine an outcome

Luck plays even more of a role in CLOSE games, which Marty CONSTANTLY had because he played too conservatively when he could have opened up leads.

[Sandy Vagina]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Luck plays even more of a role in CLOSE games, which Marty CONSTANTLY had because he played too conservatively when he could have opened up leads.

also could have thrown games away by being reckless and not leaning towards what should have been the stronger team aspect (defense).

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by Sandy Cheeks

also could have thrown games away by being reckless and not leaning towards what should have been the stronger team aspect (defense).

So he went completely opposite and threw games away going against common sense by playing to lose...