The Chiefs are good enough to give Andy Reid the Super Bowl he deserves

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

That's my point. It's one thing if you have a qb who manages games all 4th quarters. But we've seen Alex is capable of this kind of quality qb play. Alex Smith can be this qb all 4 quarters but he chooses not to be. He plays really well when his hair is in fire. But why does his hair need to be lit on fire in the first place? Why not put your team in a position where we can put teams away earlier?

His hair WASN'T ON FIRE! That's my point - he was up by 1 in the 4th. He was just playing football.

Show me the points he left on the board in that NE game - he had precisely one bad play in that game and it was the self-sack. Otherwise you're maybe talking about the sequence at the beginning of the second where he threw one incompletion in 2 possessions and otherwise handed the ball off.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

His hair WASN'T ON FIRE! That's my point - he was up by 1 in the 4th. He was just playing football.

Show me the points he left on the board in that NE game - he had precisely one bad play in that game and it was the self-sack. Otherwise you're maybe talking about the sequence at the beginning of the second where he threw one incompletion in 2 possessions and otherwise handed the ball off.

New England game - 2 straight punts on ineffective drives where we took a passive coverage 3rd down sack both times. Down by 10 points, we turn the gas on and never look back.

Philly game - several very ineffective drives. When we lose the lead, Alex Smith turns into a different QB - very quick release, decisive.

In both games, the turning point for our offense after stalling was when we started to feel like we were in a must-score situation. Even Smith's biggest supporters have to agree that our offense went from stall to turnaround at exactly the right moment in both games. That moment we started to worry that Wentz and Brady were starting to handle our defense. In both games, both Alex and our defense responded. To Alex's credit, no matter how much we fall behind or our offense stalls, he's incredible at clawing his way back into games. He is actually an outstanding game manager. That Alex score when we're up by 1 is a must-score drive when you're against Brady in the 4Q.

But you can see Alex's pattern. He feels the opposing team out to figure out how he needs to play. If our defense is shitting themselves from the beginning, Alex will play aggressive from the beginning. If we play outstanding all game, Alex will play ultra-conservative. And that's what I see in the mid-game stalls we've seen very consistently throughout Alex's career. I don't know why we need to do that.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

New England game - 2 straight punts on ineffective drives where we took a passive coverage 3rd down sack both times. Down by 10 points, we turn the gas on and never look back.

Philly game - several very ineffective drives. When we lose the lead, Alex Smith turns into a different QB - very quick release, decisive.

In both games, the turning point for our offense after stalling was when we started to feel like we were in a must-score situation. Even Smith's biggest supporters have to agree that our offense went from stall to turnaround at exactly the right moment in both games.

Those ineffective drives in NE were largely running drives, no? And yes, one ended on a coverage sack (and a horrible self-sack) and the other was just a damn good DE doing what good DEs do. The other guys get paid to play this game too, y'know. C'mon, that's thin gruel.

Those 'several ineffective drives' included one where he made a perfect deep throw when he was looking to extend a lead. They also included some bad playcalling and admittedly, at least 1 (and really 2) series where he just looked rattled.

A guy facing one of the toughest front 7s in football and getting rattled by it when he sees a premier pass rusher flatten his RB isn't exactly uncommon nor is it grounds for scorn. Hell, did you watch Aaron Rodgers last night? Guy looked like balls until that game was over and it wasn't his fault; he simply couldn't get a feel for where the pressure was going to come from. It happens.

If you ever felt like the Chiefs were in a 'must score' situation in that Eagles game, I dunno what to tell you. That game never felt in doubt.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Those ineffective drives in NE were largely running drives, no? And yes, one ended on a coverage sack (and a horrible self-sack) and the other was just a damn good DE doing what good DEs do. The other guys get paid to play this game too, y'know. C'mon, that's thin gruel.

Those 'several ineffective drives' included one where he made a perfect deep throw when he was looking to extend a lead. They also included some bad playcalling and admittedly, at least 1 (and really 2) series where he just looked rattled.

A guy facing one of the toughest front 7s in football and getting rattled by it when he sees a premier pass rusher flatten his RB isn't exactly uncommon nor is it grounds for scorn. Hell, did you watch Aaron Rodgers last night? Guy looked like balls until that game was over and it wasn't his fault; he simply couldn't get a feel for where the pressure was going to come from. It happens.

If you ever felt like the Chiefs were in a 'must score' situation in that Eagles game, I dunno what to tell you. That game never felt in doubt.

This isn't 2 games in isolation. It fits a pattern we've seen over several years. The NE game can be explained away because the moment of urgency came faster. But both games we went from a few very ineffective drives to suddenly turning on the gas at just the right moment. And you have to admit, in both games our offense's first outstanding "response" drive came at just the point when we absolutely needed to do something.

Wentz was starting to move the ball on us. He put the Eagles ahead and the way our offense played in the 2nd & 3rd, if our offense continued to play like that, things weren't looking so good. That was a must-score situation and we did. In NE, down by 10 with Brady cruising, that was a must-score situation and we did. In both cases, those scores came after a couple of stalled drives.

How many games over these years have we asked our defense to dominate and our offense to put up big scores late in the game? And how many games have we lost because 1 of those 2 didn't do that? That's a scary model to work off of. Luckily in the first 2 games, we did that. But what happens when the other team gets hot late in the game? And what about games like last year against Houston, Pitt, Jacksonville, Tennessee, Carolina, Tampa where we are lulled to sleep and that urgency trigger doesn't flip until the very last minute? You're right, it's both scheme and QB, but we don't have to put ourselves in this kind of position game after game.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

This isn't 2 games in isolation. It fits a pattern we've seen over several years...

That's my point, though - you HAVE to view it in isolation. Like I said, there's an argument to be made but you aren't (weren't) making it.

If your position is that you want to see more - okay, I get that. But when you're looking at the recent two games and trying to lump it into a trend, you're absolutely falling prey to confirmation bias.

Because had you known nothing about Alex Smith (or had Mahomes done the exact same thing), you wouldn't be making these arguments. Those performances by Smith, in isolation, do not support your argument.

You can squint and try to shoehorn them into your preconceived conclusions, but you're not giving them a fair read at that point.

Smith threw for 350+ yards and 4 TDs, including making big plays when we actually had a lead in week 1. He threw for 250 yards and went deep 4 times in a game that we were trailing for 3 minutes and never ran a risk of losing a handle on (seriously, 'Wentz was moving the ball' is the best you've got? How many games was our opponent moving the ball and we simply couldn't answer over the last 4 seasons? Several).

If you saw "the same old Alex" in those games, you're just seeing what you wanted to see. You're trying too hard to fit him into the narrative of that 4 years of football and refusing to consider the possibility that he has changed his approach. You've acknowledged it by insisting that it's not '2 games in isolation' that you're considering.

And that's not the conversation that is being had right now. Yes, Smith needs to do more to establish that this is a new normal but what we have seen for those 2 game is absolutely something different. Besides, the problem with Smith has never been the 80% of his play - by and large the bulk of his snaps have always been sufficient. It's the 3-4 plays/gm he's left on the field that could make all the difference in the world.

Right now he's trying those 3-4 plays and he's hitting them. He's making the throw that he didn't make against Pittsburgh, or he's at least attempting it (the throw he made to Hill against Philly is a perfect example of that). The throw he made to Hunt rather than his shell efforts in the playoff game against NE is another one. He's playing differently right now. Maybe it lasts, maybe it doesn't. But there's no good way to argue that this is just the same ol' Smith. His 'down' game yielded a 4,000 yard pace when the Chiefs never really had an urgent need to spread it out and throw it around. That's a different brand of quarterbacking.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

That's my point, though - you HAVE to view it in isolation. Like I said, there's an argument to be made but you aren't (weren't) making it.

If your position is that you want to see more - okay, I get that. But when you're looking at the recent two games and trying to lump it into a trend, you're absolutely falling prey to confirmation bias.

Because had you known nothing about Alex Smith (or had Mahomes done the exact same thing), you wouldn't be making these arguments. Those performances by Smith, in isolation, do not support your argument.

You can squint and try to shoehorn them into your preconceived conclusions, but you're not giving them a fair read at that point.

Smith threw for 350+ yards and 4 TDs, including making big plays when we actually had a lead in week 1. He threw for 250 yards and went deep 4 times in a game that we were trailing for 3 minutes and never ran a risk of losing a handle on (seriously, 'Wentz was moving the ball' is the best you've got? How many games was our opponent moving the ball and we simply couldn't answer over the last 4 seasons? Several).

If you saw "the same old Alex" in those games, you're just seeing what you wanted to see. You're trying too hard to fit him into the narrative of that 4 years of football and refusing to consider the possibility that he has changed his approach. You've acknowledged it by insisting that it's not '2 games in isolation' that you're considering.

And that's not the conversation that is being had right now. Yes, Smith needs to do more to establish that this is a new normal but what we have seen for those 2 game is absolutely something different. Besides, the problem with Smith has never been the 80% of his play - by and large the bulk of his snaps have always been sufficient. It's the 3-4 plays/gm he's left on the field that could make all the difference in the world.

Right now he's trying those 3-4 plays and he's hitting them. He's making the throw that he didn't make against Pittsburgh, or he's at least attempting it (the throw he made to Hill against Philly is a perfect example of that). The throw he made to Hunt rather than his shell efforts in the playoff game against NE is another one. He's playing differently right now. Maybe it lasts, maybe it doesn't. But there's no good way to argue that this is just the same ol' Smith. His 'down' game yielded a 4,000 yard pace when the Chiefs never really had an urgent need to spread it out and throw it around. That's a different brand of quarterbacking.

What is proof he's changing his approach? I agree, he's airing it out earlier more often. But while you want to point to new england as proof of some Renaissance, it's consistent as ever that when Alex Smith gets down by a lot early he becomes an aggressive qb. Enough so that many times in his short kc career he's clawed is from 2-3 tds down to at least a one score game. The second game we saw our typical inefficiency when the middle of the game had no urgency and we got the usual conservative mistakes.

Sure he's sprinkling in a few aggressive plays here and there. But the story hasn't changed. Our offense sputters in the middle of games when they don't have urgency to score. And they sputter consistently around the same time, the same game situation, in the same way.

Again, after watching the first 2 games, does anyone think we'd play Carolina, Tampa, Houston, Pittsburgh any different than we did last year? Maybe we have a better running game and a few deep passes sprinkled in. But I'd bet we manage the shit out of those games way longer than we'd need to.

[jjchieffan]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

That's my point, though - you HAVE to view it in isolation. Like I said, there's an argument to be made but you aren't (weren't) making it.

If your position is that you want to see more - okay, I get that. But when you're looking at the recent two games and trying to lump it into a trend, you're absolutely falling prey to confirmation bias.

Because had you known nothing about Alex Smith (or had Mahomes done the exact same thing), you wouldn't be making these arguments. Those performances by Smith, in isolation, do not support your argument.

You can squint and try to shoehorn them into your preconceived conclusions, but you're not giving them a fair read at that point.

Smith threw for 350+ yards and 4 TDs, including making big plays when we actually had a lead in week 1. He threw for 250 yards and went deep 4 times in a game that we were trailing for 3 minutes and never ran a risk of losing a handle on (seriously, 'Wentz was moving the ball' is the best you've got? How many games was our opponent moving the ball and we simply couldn't answer over the last 4 seasons? Several).

If you saw "the same old Alex" in those games, you're just seeing what you wanted to see. You're trying too hard to fit him into the narrative of that 4 years of football and refusing to consider the possibility that he has changed his approach. You've acknowledged it by insisting that it's not '2 games in isolation' that you're considering.

And that's not the conversation that is being had right now. Yes, Smith needs to do more to establish that this is a new normal but what we have seen for those 2 game is absolutely something different. Besides, the problem with Smith has never been the 80% of his play - by and large the bulk of his snaps have always been sufficient. It's the 3-4 plays/gm he's left on the field that could make all the difference in the world.

Right now he's trying those 3-4 plays and he's hitting them. He's making the throw that he didn't make against Pittsburgh, or he's at least attempting it (the throw he made to Hill against Philly is a perfect example of that). The throw he made to Hunt rather than his shell efforts in the playoff game against NE is another one. He's playing differently right now. Maybe it lasts, maybe it doesn't. But there's no good way to argue that this is just the same ol' Smith. His 'down' game yielded a 4,000 yard pace when the Chiefs never really had an urgent need to spread it out and throw it around. That's a different brand of quarterbacking.

Well said. I'm sure tht the haters will try to dispute it. But this post is right on. Rep!

[Simply Red]

Originally Posted by jjchieffan

Well said. I'm sure tht the haters will try to dispute it. But this post is right on. Rep!

it's all strategy, bro

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

New England game - 2 straight punts on ineffective drives where we took a passive coverage 3rd down sack both times. Down by 10 points, we turn the gas on and never look back.

Philly game - several very ineffective drives. When we lose the lead, Alex Smith turns into a different QB - very quick release, decisive.

You aren't going to have every drive be effective, at least not very often. That is why every team in the NFL has a punter. If you are knocking Alex Smith because he doesn't score a TD on every drive you have unrealistic expectations.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by splatbass

You aren't going to have every drive be effective, at least not very often. That is why every team in the NFL has a punter. If you are knocking Alex Smith because he doesn't score a TD on every drive you have unrealistic expectations.

I didn't say he has to score a TD every drive. I'm pointing to an obvious pattern that's so consistent, I don't know how nobody else sees it.

Alex Smith plays effective 1-2 drives (sometimes), he reads how the game is going, and that determines how he'll play the rest of the game. If the defense is hot, he'll be conservative as all hell. If the defense sucks, he'll be aggressive. It's not that he has bad drives. It's that in the middle of games, the bad drives are clumped together and he looks like a totally different QB. He hesitates on throws, checks down, holds onto the ball too long and takes a ton of sacks. Tons of third downs where we take a coverage sack or throw short of the sticks.The biggest turnaround in the Philly game wasn't OL play, it was playcalling and Alex decisively getting rid of the ball very quickly on the last 3 drives.

He got hot early in NE because NE put up 17 points in a hurry. Haven't we seen that before? Alex has very often responded to our defense playing poorly by matching with a shootout. But can he ever put together a big 2nd or 3rd quarter when the defense is doing well? That Philly 2nd and 3rd quarter, for all we want to blame it on the OL, looked extremely consistent with how Alex Smith has approached the middle of close games his entire time in KC. I don't think people realize that the 2 games we've seen aren't that different from how Alex Smith has approached games the last few years. It's still game management.

[Sandy Vagina]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I didn't say he has to score a TD every drive. I'm pointing to an obvious pattern that's so consistent, I don't know how nobody else sees it.

Alex Smith plays effective 1-2 drives (sometimes)

I think we can safely say it's more like 4 effective drives per game... and the bend-don't-break defense isn't giving them lots of extra time/possessions.

The drives that fail are often due to a crucial dropped pass, bizarre Andy call, a failed run, back-breaking OL/Kelce penalty, and yes.. sometimes, Smith playing the safe/field position game of eating sacks versus taking risks.

Team game. Smith can add a drive or two just from being more aggressive himself, perhaps.. but many drives fail due to circumstances not his own... yet later get lumped onto him as personal failures.

Just like last year, and the years before.. this is a frustrating style they employ that gets KC lots of wins. Smith is looking downfield a bit more, but they are not going to completely abandon this frustrating style. I'm sure we all hope they learned a painful lesson, and take a different approach in the playoffs.

[Sandy Vagina]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I don't think people realize that the 2 games we've seen aren't that different from how Alex Smith has approached games the last few years. It's still game management.

Agreed, but the QB is just the gun. Andy Reid is THE man that is holding the gun. It's easy to throw anger and blame on the person you already have preconceived notions and dislike for. But easy is not always accurate or fair.