So who feels worse this morning?

[KC Warpaint 3,234]

Chiefs fans or Packers Fans ?

[kcchief4lif 910]

For me it's the Chiefs cause the pack will still be a consitent force due to #12. Once again a no name reciever shows up in GB.

 

No clue how the chiefs will run next year?

[PhataLerror 370]

For me it's the Chiefs cause the pack will still be a consitent force due to #12. Once again a no name reciever shows up in GB.

 

No clue how the chiefs will run next year?

This is the most ridiculous post-loss post I've seen so far this off-season. If the Chiefs' defense had allowed the Patriots 20 points on 10 possessions as the Packers' defense allowed the Cardinals before overtime, Alex Smith's performance being equal, the Chiefs would have won.

 

Your Rodgers envy is pathetic. And inexcusable.

[DieHard 2,061]

I don't know.  It is bad for both.  GB was much more heart breaking.   Both teams probably lacked the Oline required to go all the way and both overcame a lot to get that far.  I like the comparison because we are in similar spots.  Different teams completely, but gutty performances to stay in the hunt as long as they did.

[KCSLC2008 606]

I don't feel so bad for the Packers because when your defense gets two turnovers, that beats our defense not getting any stops. The one interception Rodgers threw, which was his fault (so I don't feel bad), was answered by an interception from the Packers D. I know that Carson Palmer is not Tom Brady, but we had chances on 2-3 throws to get an interception. The last throws were great, but there's some good fortune to even get to OT, so I don't think I would feel as bad. And the runningback ran for 61 yards on one play. The Packers had help on defense and the running team. Some of that is Reid not calling run plays.

Belichick is better than Arians, in my opinion, but he was more suited for this game then Reid. I don't know whether we would have won the last 10 games of the regular season with Arians, but we would've won this game with him as a coach, I think. Obviously, it's just an opinion.

The Cardinals won partly because of the receiver, not all their quarterback, so I believe Arians would've been able to win our game. (Not that we have a receiver healthy or not like Fitzgerald, but clock management and playcalls seems to be a lot better over there. Some of that Playcalling is due to personnel throughout the roster that forces defenses to question more, but some of it is Arians' creativity. Reid is creative, but he also has some stupid trick plays every game that comes up at the worst times and doesn't work.)

[PhataLerror 370]

I don't feel so bad for the Packers because when your defense gets two turnovers, that beats our defense not getting any stops. The one interception Rodgers threw, which was his fault (so I don't feel bad), was answered by an interception from the Packers D. I know that Carson Palmer is not Tom Brady, but we had chances on 2-3 throws to get an interception. The last throws were great, but there's some good fortune to even get to OT, so I don't think I would feel as bad.

 

Belichick is better than Arians, in my opinion, but he was more suited for this game then Reid. I don't know whether we would have won the last 10 games of the regular season with Arians, but we would've won this game with him as a coach, I think. Obviously, it's just an opinion.

 

The Cardinals won partly because of the receiver, not all their quarterback, so I believe Arians would've been able to win our game. (Not that we have a receiver healthy or not like Fitzgerald, but clock management and playcalls seems to be a lot better over there. Some of that Playcalling is due to personnel throughout the roster that forces defenses to question more, but some of it is Arians' creativity. Reid is creative, but he also has some stupid trick plays every game that comes up at the worst times and doesn't work.)

Neither Arians nor Reid were responsible for securing the ball in Knile Davis' behalf. Davis will be looking for a new home before week one of the 2016 season. No play in the game had as great an effect on the outcome as that. The Chiefs had momentum, and the Patriots took it all away and then some. Had the Chiefs won yesterday, no one would be complaining about Reid's coaching, but instead would be talking about how amazing the protection for Smith was, and how well Smith did with a bunch of no-names running around in the Patriots' secondary, and Reid would be getting some of the credit for that.

 

It's so unfortunate that Smith keeps ending up with teammates that can't hold on to the football. Brady's teammates didn't have that problem yesterday.

[West 6,714]

I think KC had  real shot to win the SB this year....

 

All we needed was a couple of Key Third down stops on Defense or one interception.

 

Overall, I like where the team is headed and I do not give a shit about Green Bay or their fans.

 

w

[Calichief 3,016]

I think KC had real shot to win the SB this year....

 

All we needed was a couple of Key Third down stops on Defense or one interception.

 

Overall, I like where the team is headed and I do not give a shit about Green Bay or their fans.

 

w

Had their chances at multiple pickoffs.

[West 6,714]

yep....

 

You do not beat the Defending Champs unless you Make Plays.

 

The Offense made plays all afternoon, til the end.

 

The Defense....No

 

w

[Calichief 3,016]

yep....

 

You do not beat the Defending Champs unless you Make Plays.

 

The Offense made plays all afternoon, til the end.

 

The Defense....No

 

w

I'm sorry west but the offense wasn't that good. Touchdowns are what count. 20 points wasn't enough.

[kcchief4lif 910]

This is the most ridiculous post-loss post I've seen so far this off-season. If the Chiefs' defense had allowed the Patriots 20 points on 10 possessions as the Packers' defense allowed the Cardinals before overtime, Alex Smith's performance being equal, the Chiefs would have won.

 

Your Rodgers envy is pathetic. And inexcusable.

It's more than this game. Look to the future. Who do you honestly think has a better shot at carrying on winning? I also go back to if you were down in a game what QB would you think could get you the win? Not alex. You Always have a shot at winning with #12. At least that is how i would look at it if I was a packer fan.

 

What killed the chiefs was walking away with 3's and blanks on short field. Knile compounded that issue. All the flap about kc shutting out houston was a joke. Chiefs went quite a few drives without scoring. You can get away with not putting up points against the hoyers and manziels but not brady. And they paid early. The final score was no indicatio. Of the beat down kc took.

[kcchief4lif 910]

[quote name="PhataLerror" post="46712"

 

It's so unfortunate that Smith keeps ending up with teammates that can't hold on to the football. Brady's teammates didn't have that problem yesterday.

 

Holy hell did you not see how many balls julian dropped?

[Chiefmania 22]

I think he was referring to fumbling.  At SF the punt returner fumbled the game away.  Yesterday, Davis fumbled the game away.  At least that was the way that I took it. 

 

As far as the future.  I think it is damn bright for the Chiefs.  I, for one, think we have a very good coaching staff.  I think we have a good offense when everyone is healthy.  I think our D has shown that it can be dominant.  And our ST, I would put with anyone in the league. 

[PhataLerror 370]

It's more than this game. Look to the future. Who do you honestly think has a better shot at carrying on winning?

Are we assuming that the next post-season games to be played by the two teams will involve healthy squads?

 

In similar situations, Alex Smith's offense was more productive than Rodgers', and more helpful to his team's defense. Rodgers' single non-Hail Mary touchdown drive was sparked by a 61-yard run by Lacy. Then you argue, "Look to the future." Rodgers' legacy is established on the back of a singular Super Bowl run in which his defense played well, and on that basis, you'll always give Rodgers the benefit of the doubt, even as Smith's teammates continue to fumble away playoff games. You have already made your decision that Rodgers is better than Smith because Rodgers is better than Smith, so there is no point in continuing the discussion.

[PhataLerror 370]

Holy hell did you not see how many balls julian dropped?

I didn't miss that, and had mentioned that in another thread. Despite the drops, the Chiefs' defense still managed to give away 27 points. That's how awful their performance was.

[kcchief4lif 910]

Are we assuming that the next post-season games to be played by the two teams will involve healthy squads?

 

In similar situations, Alex Smith's offense was more productive than Rodgers', and more helpful to his team's defense. Rodgers' single non-Hail Mary touchdown drive was sparked by a 61-yard run by Lacy. Then you argue, "Look to the future." Rodgers' legacy is established on the back of a singular Super Bowl run in which his defense played well, and on that basis, you'll always give Rodgers the benefit of the doubt, even as Smith's teammates continue to fumble away playoff games. You have already made your decision that Rodgers is better than Smith because Rodgers is better than Smith, so there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Yes..

[azchief21 5,278]

Are we assuming that the next post-season games to be played by the two teams will involve healthy squads?

 

In similar situations, Alex Smith's offense was more productive than Rodgers', and more helpful to his team's defense. Rodgers' single non-Hail Mary touchdown drive was sparked by a 61-yard run by Lacy. Then you argue, "Look to the future." Rodgers' legacy is established on the back of a singular Super Bowl run in which his defense played well, and on that basis, you'll always give Rodgers the benefit of the doubt, even as Smith's teammates continue to fumble away playoff games. You have already made your decision that Rodgers is better than Smith because Rodgers is better than Smith, so there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Is it your feeling that Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Manning (in his prime) and Alex Smith are all equal in ability and it is merely all the surrounding circumstances that determine their success? If not, based on their overall careers how do rate the above QBs in order?

[KCSLC2008 606]

I know you weren't asking me, but if not for the Davis fumble OR if the defense forced a turnover or made one more stop earlier in the game, regardless of the affect the Patriots' lead had on New England's strategy, that we could have forced OT or won the game. Would we? I bet not, but there's enough in surrounding circumstances to say that we had a chance, with Smith, whatever good or bad one thinks of him. If so, then I don't just look at the QB and say, if we had so and so our future makes THIS game feel better. This game made me feel the way it did and the future doesn't affect that for me.

 

I also think Brady and Belichick would have responded/adjusted, so I'm not saying there would be a different result. Smith could have played better, had his opportunities, but he and Avant were the better parts of the game. I don't think his opportunities missed were any bigger or more than the defense or Davis. We've seen Rodgers lose with a bad defense and we saw Brees team lose to Smith's team.

 

I am NOT singling out azchief21, kcchief4lif, or PhataLerror, just sharing my thoughts.

[azchief21 5,278]

I know you weren't asking me, but if not for the Davis fumble OR if the defense forced a turnover or made one more stop earlier in the game, regardless of the affect the Patriots' lead had on New England's strategy, that we could have forced OT or won the game. Would we? I bet not, but there's enough in surrounding circumstances to say that we had a chance, with Smith, whatever good or bad one thinks of him. If so, then I don't just look at the QB and say, if we had so and so our future makes THIS game feel better. This game made me feel the way it did and the future doesn't affect that for me.

 

I also think Brady and Belichick would have responded/adjusted, so I'm not saying there would be a different result. Smith could have played better, had his opportunities, but he and Avant were the better parts of the game. I don't think his opportunities missed were any bigger or more than the defense or Davis. We've seen Rodgers lose with a bad defense and we saw Brees team lose to Smith's team.

 

I am NOT singling out azchief21, kcchief4lif, or PhataLerror, just sharing my thoughts.

 

Is it your feeling that Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Manning (in his prime) and Alex Smith are all equal in ability and it is merely all the surrounding circumstances that determine their success? If not, based on their overall careers how do rate the above QBs in order

 

I know you weren't asking me, but if not for the Davis fumble OR if the defense forced a turnover or made one more stop earlier in the game, regardless of the affect the Patriots' lead had on New England's strategy, that we could have forced OT or won the game. Would we? I bet not, but there's enough in surrounding circumstances to say that we had a chance, with Smith, whatever good or bad one thinks of him. If so, then I don't just look at the QB and say, if we had so and so our future makes THIS game feel better. This game made me feel the way it did and the future doesn't affect that for me.

 

I also think Brady and Belichick would have responded/adjusted, so I'm not saying there would be a different result. Smith could have played better, had his opportunities, but he and Avant were the better parts of the game. I don't think his opportunities missed were any bigger or more than the defense or Davis. We've seen Rodgers lose with a bad defense and we saw Brees team lose to Smith's team.

 

I am NOT singling out azchief21, kcchief4lif, or PhataLerror, just sharing my thoughts.

I don't mind that you jumped in. You didn't answer the question though. I am fully aware that Smith's team beat Brees team. I've heard it a zillion times on here. It's his career highlight. Means zip to me as Chiefs fan. I could care less what he did with another team. It's interesting how much credit he gets for wins. And how many excuses he gets by some people on here when he loses.  

[KCSLC2008 606]

I didn't answer your question because I don't think it's relevant to how I feel this morning. They are different QBs with different strengths. Smith is likely as smart or smarter. They exhibit their passion differently, but Smith's cool nature has helped win games. Physically, he doesn't have as strong of arm since his throwing shoulder was injured, played through, and surgery botched. Smith is more mobile than they are.

 

We have different teams than the Packers, Broncos, Saints, etc. We have different coaching staffs. Personnel outside of RB has never been that good on offense. We got our best result when we got Maclin. Good, add someone else, too. (Surrounding circumstances.)

 

What these QBs skills-wise compare outside of the surrounding circumstances are smaller than the sum of the other differences within those circumstances and these differences help and hinder getting these QBs where they are. Often, with just one of those circumstances changing, Smith succeeds and they fail, and vice-versa. We've seen these QBs fail with poor surrounding circumstances, we've seen them excel with exceptional surrounding circumstances; we've seen Smith play well despite them as well as fail with them.

 

So no, they are not all equal in ability and it isn't all surrounding circumstances. My ranking is irrelevant and is probably the same as yours is, but if those guys lost the game last night on my team, I'm not feeling any better this morning. We need to improve the surrounding circumstances as well as drafting well, delegating the playcalls, etc. None of this excludes the QB.

 

As far as non-Chiefs games meaning zip to you, that's ridiculous when talking about one's abilities and surrounding circumstances. Manning, Brees, Rodgers never played for the Chiefs either. I guess we can take those games off the table. Rodgers has zero titles with us. I know Smith has zero, too, but the title Rodgers has with the Packers, means zip. Right? If we can't talk about the past, then they have zero too and are at home as well.

 

I understand if they won a title or lost every game for SF it wouldn't cause you to lose sleep or celebrate, but it's part of the factors of evaluating the situation. If Smith's career doesn't have many great games and the rest of the QBs do, than that's relevant. But you don't remove the great plays and say, it means zip. You take the good and bad and the way it's added up takes care of the rest. It's obvious to admit Smith doesn't have as much.

[eraser 722]

The Chiefs didn't finish their first drive. Their defensive scheme did not account for wide open receivers. Their defense did not get to Tom Brady. The Patriots got the benefit of not getting called for hands to the face or holding. The Patriots seemed to have a little more juice for the game. The Chiefs turned the ball over once. The Chiefs failed to get a turnover. There were chances. There were three passes that could have been intercepted by the Chiefs. 

 

The Chiefs came within one interception of tying up this game and sending it to overtime. Tamba Hali batted Brady's pass. It was deflected, and got a lucky hop to another Patriots receiver. That was the difference. Had that pass gone a slightly different trajectory, we might be talking about how the Chiefs keep on rolling despite the odds. 

 

Yesterday, the 2015 season officially ended. The Chiefs have to sign Berry, D J, either Abdullah or Branch (probably not both, and maybe neither), and maybe Tamba Hali for a final season. They will add back a few free agents to minimum contracts such as West. 

 

They need to get another playmaker. The Chiefs were without Houston for most of the final half of the season. Hali was limited. They did well, considering. 

[azchief21 5,278]

I didn't answer your question because I don't think it's relevant to how I feel this morning. They are different QBs with different strengths. Smith is likely as smart or smarter. They exhibit their passion differently, but Smith's cool nature has helped win games. Physically, he doesn't have as strong of arm since his throwing shoulder was injured, played through, and surgery botched. Smith is more mobile than they are.

 

We have different teams than the Packers, Broncos, Saints, etc. We have different coaching staffs. Personnel outside of RB has never been that good on offense. We got our best result when we got Maclin. Good, add someone else, too. (Surrounding circumstances.)

 

What these QBs skills-wise compare outside of the surrounding circumstances are smaller than the sum of the other differences within those circumstances and these differences help and hinder getting these QBs where they are. Often, with just one of those circumstances changing, Smith succeeds and they fail, and vice-versa. We've seen these QBs fail with poor surrounding circumstances, we've seen them excel with exceptional surrounding circumstances; we've seen Smith play well despite them as well as fail with them.

 

So no, they are not all equal in ability and it isn't all surrounding circumstances. My ranking is irrelevant and is probably the same as yours is, but if those guys lost the game last night on my team, I'm not feeling any better this morning. We need to improve the surrounding circumstances as well as drafting well, delegating the playcalls, etc. None of this excludes the QB.

 

As far as non-Chiefs games meaning zip to you, that's ridiculous when talking about one's abilities and surrounding circumstances. Manning, Brees, Rodgers never played for the Chiefs either. I guess we can take those games off the table. Rodgers has zero titles with us. I know Smith has zero, too, but the title Rodgers has with the Packers, means zip. Right? If we can't talk about the past, then they have zero too and are at home as well.

 

I understand if they won a title or lost every game for SF it wouldn't cause you to lose sleep or celebrate, but it's part of the factors of evaluating the situation. If Smith's career doesn't have many great games and the rest of the QBs do, than that's relevant. But you don't remove the great plays and say, it means zip. You take the good and bad and the way it's added up takes care of the rest. It's obvious to admit Smith doesn't have as much.

Yep. You're a lawyer!

[KCSLC2008 606]

Yep. You're a lawyer!

Objection! Relevance. Counsel is testifying. Please keep your examination in the form of questions. No ad-hominem attacks.

 

Wait, what? We're not in a courtroom? Well then, how am I going to get paid for doing this? Legal Research, that's it! It's not legal research? Well, it's not illegal research and therefore it must be legal.

 

----------------------------------

 

Seriously though, my thoughts are probably not that far off from yours. I put fault on everybody in this game ( except maybe Avant) and the fact that it was close, makes me question even more. I am all for drafting personnel anywhere from line to quarterback to defense so long as it helps this team. I want my team developing behind every position, again, from everywhere, including quarterback.

 

I want everyone on the team to have their best chance and be put in the best position they can to succeed, but there's no rule against people leapfrogging others. Sure, taking some risks might have the benefit of a better draft pick, and that would have some benefits down the road, but I'll leave that to other people to make all the what if's. We can easily strike out as well and there's value in the effort of the risk; I can understand, but again, I'm my own person. I would rather keep improving and replace as necessary when somebody leapfrogs.

 

I want the winning culture, the smart drafter, the big picture, and consistent perpetual success over the big dips. I realize that some teams can set them up with an elite player by losing, but trying to manufacture it that way is a lot rarer. The surrounding circumstances will improve and we can trade up in certain situations. We can even succeed and trade up. No one on this roster is here forever and I depend on consistent and smart roster turnover.

 

I say all this because some people think one has to move on from a certain player and take their lumps. We'll do that, but I'd like to set up the next guy at every position with the best situation. Is there a once generation guy out there, if there is, that's one thing, but as you can see a lot of teams don't even get that position but it looks like they're trying to lose. Best bet is to draft well wherever you are, develop, re-sign smartly, rinse and repeat. One might ask what that hasn't worked yet, but that's because we haven't had a consistently good GM before. Andy Reid won't be here forever, but it would be good for him to set the stage.

 

In summary, I like where this team is headed for the long term. And that's what makes me not so concerned about how other teams feel this morning. Takes a team, quarterback and surrounding circumstances and we are building up on that with a smart plan. However long Smith plays here, we are in good hands in the future and in good hands for the term he is here.

[KCSLC2008 606]

I do hope that some of you at least try to read through the whole thing I posted in my previous post. Kudos to you if you can. Not everyone can make it out alive. In the days before speech recognition, more people survived through my posts.

[SEMO 6,811]

No thanks, Eraser.