Alex Smith announces retirement

[-King-]

FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);">

FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank">

3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;"> View this post on Instagram

c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;">c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank">A post shared by Elizabeth Smith (@lizbsmith11)

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

This is something I was going to mention as well. 99/100 the better team will win the series, which takes the bite out of pretty much every other major sports league, IMO. The win-or-go-home nature of the NFL postseason makes it so unique.

If you look at the end results its not THAT different. maybe not 99/100 but like 40/50 and something like 26 or 27/30 for the most recent years

[Easy 6]

I'm genuinely shocked he didn't end up in Jax, he would've been an ideal backup/mentor for Lawrence

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

And this here is why you not being die hard in the 90’s makes all the difference. The NFL playoffs absolutely can be decided by one bounce if the ball. But those of us that were fans back then watched the ball bounce the WRONG way not once or twice but EVERY DAMN TIME.

We had a coach that believes in keeping the game close because he always wanted a chance to win it at the end. The problem is that when that ball bounces the wrong way in close games, it’s a death blow. It became a curse - anything that could go wrong did - untimely penalties, turnovers, missed field goals. Marty invented a new way to lose every time. And when we had a QB that could overcome it, the other team just hurt him to get him out of the game.

Not having experienced that viscerally, I’m just not sure you can see it from my view. Let me put it this way:

I’m sure when Indy cemented their comeback in 2013, you were stunned. I wasn’t. In fact, when they scored the 2nd time to cut the lead, my first thought was “here we go again”.

Honestly, I'm a lil chiefy at heart. I truly believed that we could win any game prior to Mahomes coming to town. Even back in the Cassel days, I'd get my ass up and ready every Sunday hoping Jamaal could carry us to victory lol

Now, with Patrick, I truly believe that we will win every game

Originally Posted by Bearcat

It's tied to being competitive in the biggest games of the season and then against the few really good teams in the postseason. Everyone knows you're not winning a SB every year, but being a true contender most years is infinitely better than the "make the playoffs and see what happens" approach.

The Patriots did it for 20 years, Packers have done it for years, the Colts for years with Manning, etc.... but, never the Chiefs prior to Mahomes.

Tim Tebow can win more games than he loses and win a playoff game... it's actually very hard not to reach that level of mediocrity in the NFL every year or three. That's the entire point of the league and it's not impressive or all that entertaining, IMO, to beat or 9 or 10 teams that range from shit to okay and then beat one of them in the playoffs before bowing out to a real contender.

I don't think anyone would argue the contrary.

I think there are people on both sides of the fence for either "4-12, 6-10 types of seasons until you get the QB are preferable" and "give me 10-6, 11-5 seasons even though our chances of winning it all are extremely slim". I'd take the latter every time. It seems many here would prefer the former.

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

If you look at the end results its not THAT different. maybe not 99/100 but like 40/50 and something like 26 or 27/30 for the most recent years

If you look solely at the winners, then it's a little closer, but including the final four shows that you've actually got a pretty good shot at getting far even without an elite QB. In the last 20 years, here are the teams I'd say made it to at least the Championship game who did not have an elite QB at the time. It's going to be a bit murky because of what you might consider elite. Like, I would not consider Brady elite from 2001-2004. Russel Wilson was not elite in 2013. Guys like Flacco in 2012 were not elite, but had elite postseasons. Manning in 2015 was no longer elite, though obviously he once was. Anyway, here goes:

2019 49ers
2019 Titans
2018 Rams (this one is up for debate as Goff was potentially in elite category that season)
2017 Eagles
2017 Vikings
2017 Jaguars
2015 Cardinals (also up for debate as Palmer was pretty elite that year)
2015 Broncos
2014 Seahawks
2013 49ers
2013 Seahawks
2012 49ers
2012 Ravens
2011 Ravens
2011 Giants
2011 49ers
2010 Jets
2010 Bears
2009 Jets
2008 Ravens
2006 Bears
2005 Seahawks
2005 Broncos
2004 Patriots
2003 Panthers
2003 Patriots
2002 Titans
2002 Buccaneers
2001 Patriots
2000 Giants
2000 Ravens

I almost listed the 2016 Falcons and 2015 Panthers but decided not to as Newton and Ryan both had MVP season's that year that clearly propelled the team to elite territory.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

I think there are people on both sides of the fence for either "4-12, 6-10 types of seasons until you get the QB are preferable" and "give me 10-6, 11-5 seasons even though our chances of winning it all are extremely slim". I'd take the latter every time. It seems many here would prefer the former.

Depends on the long term vision/plans, IMO.

If the main driver of front office decisions is butts in seats or just the basic idea of not wanting an embarrassing season, you can ride that 9-11 win train for years with mediocre QBs that other teams don't want, and that's not acceptable, IMO.

Or if you're riding along with a core group that's "good enough" but probably won't ever win anything, I'd much rather see that team be more aggressive with a rebuild. You see this with hockey quite a bit these days, after teams like the Sharks hung on faaaaar too long, but now teams are becoming far more aggressive with selling their assets and stocking up on young talent.

But, say your motivation is to turn around a shit franchise quickly, but of course franchise QBs don't grow on trees.... then if the motivation is to grab an Alex Smith to quickly get back to respectability, but aggressively seek a replacement when the right QB and situation arises, then I'd much rather live out a few of those just-above-mediocre seasons.

Basically, I'd prefer a short stint at the bottom if that gets a team over the hump sooner, than trying avoid bottoming out with no real vision/concept of being a true contender.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Yeah, I was born in 73 and became a fan in 89. You missed the Marty years where we had not one, not two, but THREE ex-49er QB's - Bono, Montana, and Grbac.

Actually had FOUR ex-49ers - DeBerg was on as well.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by -King-

I dunno...maybe it's the injuries and bad o-lines and bad coaching in his younger years that ****ed up his confidence.

What about Mike Kafka's play makes him a good qb coach for Mahomes?

Well, for one he's already been a coach for years and was a coach on two Super Bowl teams. I'd rather have Mike Vick coach than Alex Smith.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

I think there are people on both sides of the fence for either "4-12, 6-10 types of seasons until you get the QB are preferable" and "give me 10-6, 11-5 seasons even though our chances of winning it all are extremely slim". I'd take the latter every time. It seems many here would prefer the former.

I don’t think anybody said they would PREFER the former. But for me, I just don’t see the difference. This team won more games in the 90’s than every other NFL team other than San Francisco. They had more regular season wins than the Bills, who went to the Super Bowl four times.

After a run like that, there really isn’t anything left to accomplish other than winning in the playoffs and eventually winning a championship, which the Chiefs spent the next two decades trying to do.

Nobody enjoys a 4-win season. Some people enjoy 10-win seasons though and some don’t.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Actually had FOUR ex-49ers - DeBerg was on as well.

I forgot about that. I was only remembering his stint in Tampa.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

If you look solely at the winners, then it's a little closer,

Yes, thats what I was doing was looking at ring winners. I don't agree with some of the items on your
list but since my point was winners anyway, I won't argue on a case by case....
I used to just want to get in there. I was one of the biggest 3-yards and a cloud of dust + solid D = playoffs
guy there ever was. Just to show you how extreme I was in that mentality and how long I clung onto it,
I actually had hope that MATT CASSEL would be 'good enough' to just get us that chance to win a ring.
The destruction of my conservative / old school football spirit began with Marty and was fully completed
and I joined the dark side when matt cassel was 'good enough' to get us to the playoffs in 2010. My unhappiness
with alex smith was not hindsight. I am on record from literally day 1 with my reasons as to why he would
never take us deep. Until / unless I see the new trend of elite QB's winning rings almost every year, and
the rules favoring the passing attack I simply cannot accept not having an elite passing attack / passer
as a 'real' attempt at winning a ring. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors / seat filling / placating the masses, honestly. Yes, there are
exceptions. If people want to quibble about exactly HOW stacked the odds are against non-eite QB's
(9-1 vs 7-1 or whatever) I really don't care. Its stacked. Period. And yes, I am talking about winning a ring.

[BigRedChief]

[ThaVirus]

Seems we all mostly agree.

Good discussion, boys. Very chill, civil. I like it.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Yes, thats what I was doing was looking at ring winners. I don't agree with some of the items on your
list but since my point was winners anyway, I won't argue on a case by case....
I used to just want to get in there. I was one of the biggest 3-yards and a cloud of dust + solid D = playoffs
guy there ever was. Just to show you how extreme I was in that mentality and how long I clung onto it,
I actually had hope that MATT CASSEL would be 'good enough' to just get us that chance to win a ring.
The destruction of my conservative / old school football spirit began with Marty and was fully completed
and I joined the dark side when matt cassel was 'good enough' to get us to the playoffs in 2010. My unhappiness
with alex smith was not hindsight. I am on record from literally day 1 with my reasons as to why he would
never take us deep. Until / unless I see the new trend of elite QB's winning rings almost every year, and
the rules favoring the passing attack I simply cannot accept not having an elite passing attack / passer
as a 'real' attempt at winning a ring. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors / seat filling / placating the masses, honestly. Yes, there are
exceptions. If people want to quibble about exactly HOW stacked the odds are against non-eite QB's
(9-1 vs 7-1 or whatever) I really don't care. Its stacked. Period. And yes, I am talking about winning a ring.

Yesh, at the time it was the excitement of Reid, shitcanning Pioli, and the excitement of Dorsey.... just to be shown yet another 49ers QB retread.

And in that moment it didn't even really matter if any QB in the draft fit their system or whatever... no matter how warranted it was that time, it was just laughably sad to see the next regime do the same thing as the last regimes with the most important position across all sports.

In that moment, I would have preferred another 4-win season and take a chance the following season over years more of playoff one-and-dones.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

In that moment, I would have preferred another 4-win season and take a chance the following season over years more of playoff one-and-dones.

exactly my feeling. And if you look back at my posts from those threads where we traded for smith,
youll see one other angle of my personal unhappiness was having watched a lot of smith's play at SF
(being as I live out here and my wife is a die hard SF fan). So I felt like I knew the situation pretty
well and what we were getting into.The other thing that really pissed me off during those times was the
1.1 Fischer draft pick. Yeah, yeah I know ...I know..that was a horrible draft year etc....But I couldn't stand
that pick and felt we couldve traded it or tried to do SOMETHING different..and ridden with Albert another year or 2.
But anyways yeah i mean, in my mind this was a continuation of retreads and a shitty cirtcumstance
of that 1.1 just so happening the year after andrew luck etc and my personal experience watching smith play for
years prior. I was not happy about it...BUT...I will say this. Alex is a great guy, a tough son of a bitch
and of course deserves a happy retirement. There a lot of people on both sides who exxaggerate what
he was or what he wasn't. I have never said he was horrible or anything...he was just the embodiment
of what I knew was futility. I think if people look at my posts without being hysterical and overly defensive
of smith , I am pretty reasonable in my logic and I havent overstated things. Yes, I used to post my
displeasure a LOT. So I did make a lot of posts , but I dont think any of them were completely off base.
I just posted too much back then, honestly. My biggest issue here was way more the Alexsexuals than alex himself.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

That was a stinker, which is a shame because he put up a hell of a first half. You just can't follow that up with a goose egg in the second half.

If that douche Triplette doesn't call off the "forward progress" sack, who knows how it ends? That's kinda been Alex's career though. In 2011 he definitely goes to a Super Bowl if not for Kyle Williams muffing two punts. In 2013 he just couldn't hang on in the end @IND with the Luck fumble TD. The forward progress sack and Mariota's TD pass to himself against TEN in 2017.

Guy was just always on the wrong end.. and that was mostly his fault. I'd say @NE 2015, PIT 2016 and TEN 2017 were losses I'd say he took the brunt of the blame for having subpar games.



It was fun. I watch highlights from that period frequently.

It was frustrating and not nearly as fun as it is with Mahomes, but a hell of a lot better than going 4-12, 6-10 or some shit like that.

Alex fumbled late in that Indy game. The ball was recovered by an Indy defender whose ass cheeks were split by the boundary at the edge of the field.

in other words...he was out of bounds when he recovered the ball.

[VAGOMO 4 LIFE!]

Best win percentage by a starting QB in the last 10 seasons (min. 50 starts):

Peyton Manning .789
Tom Brady .763
Aaron Rodgers .696
Alex Smith .688

Say what you want, but Alex Smith was always a WINNER! pic.twitter.com/tzw794W3LE

— CBS Sports HQ (@CBSSportsHQ) April 20, 2021