5-0 to no playoffs

[Chief's Arrow 0]

I said it on the Scout board and maintain the theory that no matter what Alex Smith does in KC, including winning a Super Bowl, there will be people that still hate him and find any reason to take credit away or blame him.

 

Alex Smith has done a complete 180 this year and we are 5-2 instead of 2-5 because of it.

I am not hating on Smith. I actually like the guy from SF to here. I just like to be realistic about things.

 

I am pointing out that he is not a clutch qb; and in the playoffs, you need a clutch qb. We have seen it with Smith in all of his career with us(and then some): He does decent to very good in regular season, and us, as Chiefs fans, go into the playoffs with the queasy certainty that we will be one and done(unless we get some team like Texans[not this year though, they seem to have a clutch qb in the making]) or at most, two and done.

 

You can't deny this; no Chiefs fan can deny this. It all has to do with whom is under center or what type of defense you have.

[reesebobby 5,663]

Apparently you cannot read. No, that is not the point. I am not comparing Smith to anyone.

 

Apparently you forgot that the entire conversation was started by a comparison of Smith to Carr.  One succeeded the other did not.  Remember that, Vizzini? 

[KCSLC2008 606]

I am not hating on Smith. I actually like the guy from SF to here. I just like to be realistic about things.

 

I am pointing out that he is not a clutch qb; and in the playoffs, you need a clutch qb. We have seen it with Smith in all of his career with us(and then some): He does decent to very good in regular season, and us, as Chiefs fans, go into the playoffs with the queasy certainty that we will be one and done(unless we get some team like Texans[not this year though, they seem to have a clutch qb in the making]) or at most, two and done.

 

You can't deny this; no Chiefs fan can deny this. It all has to do with whom is under center or what type of defense you have.

If we are talking about playoffs and clutch, he has shown it before. Following him from the Niners, you would see that. He's also had his opportunities and didn't come through. So I see it both ways but if he can do it once, he can do it again. For all I care this year he has an opportunity and I wouldn't use history have any quarterback to make statements about what he won't do.

 

I mean, for most every quarterback in the league, expectations are they won't win the Super Bowl. Only one does and only very few are in that conversation year after year. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Smith is there. So the fact that the norm happens to him like most quarterbacks doesn't really stand out to me. He can and has played clutch and that's he can and has played clutch and that's all that matters to me. Then, we will have this conversation about Mahomes later.

 

You might say no shit, but if he hadn't had that Saints game, I'd probably be right with you. I'm not saying that his team was depleted and he overcame, I'm just saying he played clutch and our team when they right the ship should be just right there this year.

 

I know, I know, the next thing to be said is that we don't want the norm, we want the exception. But I don't think anyone is saying that we have the exception. It comes across as smug when somebody comes and tells us what we already think as if they've discovered the cure to cancer. We all hope that Mahomes is the exception. We all hope for us to go as far as we can this year. The Patriots aren't trading us Tom Brady so I don't really see the point in worrying about all this. Mahomes is just getting ready and Smith will give us his best shot.

[Chiefmanzada 466]

I am not hating on Smith. I actually like the guy from SF to here. I just like to be realistic about things.

 

I am pointing out that he is not a clutch qb; and in the playoffs, you need a clutch qb. We have seen it with Smith in all of his career with us(and then some): He does decent to very good in regular season, and us, as Chiefs fans, go into the playoffs with the queasy certainty that we will be one and done(unless we get some team like Texans[not this year though, they seem to have a clutch qb in the making]) or at most, two and done.

 

You can't deny this; no Chiefs fan can deny this. It all has to do with whom is under center or what type of defense you have.

Smith has only this season left to prove he can deliver a championship. You sir, right now, say he cannot.

 

Mark it down. You will be challenged when the time comes. If Smith delivers, your credibility may be shunned, Arrow.

[Chiefmanzada 466]

Smith was 100% clutch in that Denver win last year @ Denver when Santos won the game after nailing the post.

 

Since then, I’ve been a belieber

[Mloe68 1,521]

That's you protecting Smith and justifying for him. I, too, have seen a difference in playcall in last 3 games. However, that last drive, Smith has to make that play and keep the clock running. We all saw how he gets the PTS persona back, and gets happy feet and dumps the ball off anywhere. It was like he remembered who he was.

 

And it wasn't just on that series. Over the last few games we have been seeing that Smith. You cannot just say it was that series. Clutch qbs make that first down and keep the clock going. He, sadly, is just not a clutch qb. That is why we now have the backup we have.

So I guess Wentz, Brady, Watson, Cousins and Rivers do not qualify as clutch QBs vs Alex this year by this type of logic. Is our offensive line a train wreck the past few weeks with all the injuries or not? What about their clutch play? Carr was 1-5 vs Alex so he wasn't clutch. But now he is. One week after not being clutch vs Chargers. And Rivers led Chargers to 17 points so he was clutch in that game but not vs Alex. Just very shortsighted logic in my opinion. But whatever. I'll just tell you this. You lead an offense to 30 points on the road, you will win at least 90 percent of the time.

[KCSLC2008 606]

Smith has only this season left to prove he can deliver a championship. You sir, right now, say he cannot.

 

Mark it down. You will be challenged when the time comes. If Smith delivers, your credibility may be shunned, Arrow.

I wouldn't take a bet saying that we will win the Super Bowl; I mean, I want even bet that the Patriots will.

 

But if there is one that we won't, I would like to have the stipulation that one cannot discount it if there aren't any games to be clutch. If Smith plays well enough that all games are blowouts, that should be sufficient. I don't need no credit shifting.

 

As far as blame shifting goes, there would be blame on the QB; there always is. We either win or we don't.

 

In other words, I don't want any parameters of "I said without a D" or "in bad weather" or "against the wall." Winning a SB is damn hard enough that we don't need to handicap it. If he falters in the clutch, he does.

[Chief's Arrow 0]

Apparently you forgot that the entire conversation was started by a comparison of Smith to Carr.  One succeeded the other did not.  Remember that, Vizzini? 

What? Go back to post #161 in page 9. I'd like to see what your reply would be on your point here. YOu will probably overlook it or not mention it. The whole conversation started by a Carr comparison, he says. I'm telling you, delusion in one area bleeds into the next.

[PhataLerror 370]

I'll just tell you this. You lead an offense to 30 points on the road, you will win at least 90 percent of the time.

Since the beginning of the Super Bowl era and through 2016, the win percentage of road teams was .422. When the road team scores more than 29 points, the win percentage rises to .865.

 

It's not even the fact that the Chiefs scored 30 points in a loss that bothers me. It's the fact that for years I've been hearing about how the Chiefs' defense carries the offense, and except for 2013, it never really was true. Now it's starting to look like the offense has really been carrying the defense for some time.

[Chief's Arrow 0]

If we are talking about playoffs and clutch, he has shown it before. Following him from the Niners, you would see that. He's also had his opportunities and didn't come through. So I see it both ways but if he can do it once, he can do it again. For all I care this year he has an opportunity and I wouldn't use history have any quarterback to make statements about what he won't do.

 

I mean, for most every quarterback in the league, expectations are they won't win the Super Bowl. Only one does and only very few are in that conversation year after year. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Smith is there. So the fact that the norm happens to him like most quarterbacks doesn't really stand out to me. He can and has played clutch and that's he can and has played clutch and that's all that matters to me. Then, we will have this conversation about Mahomes later.

 

You might say no shit, but if he hadn't had that Saints game, I'd probably be right with you. I'm not saying that his team was depleted and he overcame, I'm just saying he played clutch and our team when they right the ship should be just right there this year.

 

I know, I know, the next thing to be said is that we don't want the norm, we want the exception. But I don't think anyone is saying that we have the exception. It comes across as smug when somebody comes and tells us what we already think as if they've discovered the cure to cancer. We all hope that Mahomes is the exception. We all hope for us to go as far as we can this year. The Patriots aren't trading us Tom Brady so I don't really see the point in worrying about all this. Mahomes is just getting ready and Smith will give us his best shot.

I think we have different definitions of the word clutch. He's had two, two exceptional playoff games in 6 post season games; and at least one of those two games was with a stellar defense. When you have a good stat day, that does not automatically qualify as clutch. Clutch is being in those drives where you must get it done, even in a bad stat day, a qb can be clutch by doing the thing that allows the team to win.

 

I'm not talking about the exception either. I'll tell you of a qb that is not necessarily a stats dude, but is all clutch: Russel Wilson. Rodgers and Tom are the exception of being stat and clutch. I'm not even talking about that because that involves luck, among other things. I just want Smith to be clutch, but he has not proved it. Maybe he will this year, but in key moments against key opponents he has not and looked like the fearful qb--even though he is having a really good start to the season.

 

I like your argument, and explanation, though. I think you are approaching your argument with an objective reasoning, unlike some other people here.

[Chiefmanzada 466]

I wouldn't take a bet saying that we will win the Super Bowl; I mean, I want even bet that the Patriots will.

 

But if there is one that we won't, I would like to have the stipulation that one cannot discount it if there aren't any games to be clutch. If Smith plays well enough that all games are blowouts, that should be sufficient. I don't need no credit shifting.

 

As far as blame shifting goes, there would be blame on the QB; there always is. We either win or we don't.

 

In other words, I don't want any parameters of "I said without a D" or "in bad weather" or "against the wall." Winning a SB is damn hard enough that we don't need to handicap it. If he falters in the clutch, he does.

Who said SB? I said championship. AFC specifically

[Chiefmanzada 466]

Since the beginning of the Super Bowl era and through 2016, the win percentage of road teams was .422. When the road team scores more than 29 points, the win percentage rises to .865.

 

It's not even the fact that the Chiefs scored 30 points in a loss that bothers me. It's the fact that for years I've been hearing about how the Chiefs' defense carries the offense, and except for 2013, it never really was true. Now it's starting to look like the offense has really been carrying the defense for some time.

Please. Smith was below avg last year.

[Chief's Arrow 0]

Smith has only this season left to prove he can deliver a championship. You sir, right now, say he cannot.

 

Mark it down. You will be challenged when the time comes. If Smith delivers, your credibility may be shunned, Arrow.

Correction: I say he has not showed it and needs to prove it. Can he? Of course. Can you win the lotto? Of course. Also, my analysis of him early this season made me think he was finally overcoming. Pats game was filled with clutch plays. I'm more talking about how he handles himself and how he performs in the pocket and his decision-making--especially of late that worries me. He goes back to panic mode, and seems to have a mental stigma in clutch moments.

 

I have said over and over in my short debut here: I hope he proves me wrong. I would love to be so wrong, that you have no idea(maybe you do have an idea). My credibility is not based on fortune-telling. I am analyzing what I am seeing from him this season, mixed with his history. This past Pitt game was eerily similar to our playoff loss to them last year. THose are the type of games that usually happen in playoffs. Those are the games that, when the qb has the shot to put the other team away, clutch qbs do. 

[Chiefmanzada 466]

Correction: I say he has not showed it and needs to prove it. Can he? Of course. Can you win the lotto? Of course. Also, my analysis of him early this season made me think he was finally overcoming. Pats game was filled with clutch plays. I'm more talking about how he handles himself and how he performs in the pocket and his decision-making--especially of late that worries me. He goes back to panic mode, and seems to have a mental stigma in clutch moments.

 

I have said over and over in my short debut here: I hope he proves me wrong. I would love to be so wrong, that you have no idea(maybe you do have an idea). My credibility is not based on fortune-telling. I am analyzing what I am seeing from him this season, mixed with his history. This past Pitt game was eerily similar to our playoff loss to them last year. THose are the type of games that usually happen in playoffs. Those are the games that, when the qb has the shot to put the other team away, clutch qbs do.

There is a side to him that is like Falco from the Replacements. When the game is on the line, does Smith want the ball against the Steelers? What about against the Texans?

 

It seems Smith gets nervous depending upon a.) who he plays b.) how our defense plays c.) how our OL plays and d.) where he plays.

 

The cold is always a notch against him. Our bad D play is always a notch against him. The Steelers are always a notch against him.

 

His mental game is dependent upon other factors rather than his own self-confidence. He’s a robot in some games, games he’s not so confident because of one of the factors listed above. In other words, he’s human. And to win a SB, you need to overcome these fears. He DOES have the skills and talent to do so, it’s just if he WILL overcome.

[KCSLC2008 606]

Correction: I say he has not showed it and needs to prove it. Can he? Of course. Can you win the lotto? Of course. Also, my analysis of him early this season made me think he was finally overcoming. Pats game was filled with clutch plays. I'm more talking about how he handles himself and how he performs in the pocket and his decision-making--especially of late that worries me. He goes back to panic mode, and seems to have a mental stigma in clutch moments.

 

I have said over and over in my short debut here: I hope he proves me wrong. I would love to be so wrong, that you have no idea(maybe you do have an idea). My credibility is not based on fortune-telling. I am analyzing what I am seeing from him this season, mixed with his history. This past Pitt game was eerily similar to our playoff loss to them last year. THose are the type of games that usually happen in playoffs. Those are the games that, when the qb has the shot to put the other team away, clutch qbs do.

I put blame on Smith's offense not beating an 18 point Steelers team. But I did think that if Fisher just blocks normally, we'd be talking about the clutch two point conversion and maybe OT win. Or the Steelers march down and get a FG to win 21-18. Other issues in that game still present.

 

I get that we had another attempt at the two point conversion and I don't put that beyond Brady or Rodgers or even, Wilson, but I don't put that in the same vein as if Smith f'ed up that first conversion attempt or failed to score the 6 preceding (I know, a rushing TD).

 

Either way, we have a better chance at winning the Super Bowl with Smith and one has to win the lottery. Wahoo!!!

[KCSLC2008 606]

I think we have different definitions of the word clutch. He's had two, two exceptional playoff games in 6 post season games; and at least one of those two games was with a stellar defense. When you have a good stat day, that does not automatically qualify as clutch. Clutch is being in those drives where you must get it done, even in a bad stat day, a qb can be clutch by doing the thing that allows the team to win.

 

I'm not talking about the exception either. I'll tell you of a qb that is not necessarily a stats dude, but is all clutch: Russel Wilson. Rodgers and Tom are the exception of being stat and clutch. I'm not even talking about that because that involves luck, among other things. I just want Smith to be clutch, but he has not proved it. Maybe he will this year, but in key moments against key opponents he has not and looked like the fearful qb--even though he is having a really good start to the season.

 

I like your argument, and explanation, though. I think you are approaching your argument with an objective reasoning, unlike some other people here.

I gave no mention of the Colts game where he had a bunch of stats. I'm talking about the Niners versus the Saints playoff game. That was clutch. Was it a perfect game? No. Was he without help? No. But he won't be without help this year either, even if the defense isn't playing as well. But I just care if we win or not, not credit or blame.

[Chief's Arrow 0]

There is a side to him that is like Falco from the Replacements. When the game is on the line, does Smith want the ball against the Steelers? What about against the Texans?

 

It seems Smith gets nervous depending upon a.) who he plays b.) how our defense plays c.) how our OL plays and d.) where he plays.

 

The cold is always a notch against him. Our bad D play is always a notch against him. The Steelers are always a notch against him.

 

His mental game is dependent upon other factors rather than his own self-confidence. He’s a robot in some games, games he’s not so confident because of one of the factors listed above. In other words, he’s human. And to win a SB, you need to overcome these fears. He DOES have the skills and talent to do so, it’s just if he WILL overcome.

That's my point. He seems to shy away from those moments. I know he developed from a terribly dysfunctional and abusive family(9ers). I don't think he can overcome that. And your last sentence is exactly my point, my thesis. He can obviously win games. However, being a clutch qb is making plays in specific and adverse conditions, against the best. That is what I've been saying and been my point all along.

[Chief's Arrow 0]

I put blame on Smith's offense not beating an 18 point Steelers team. But I did think that if Fisher just blocks normally, we'd be talking about the clutch two point conversion and maybe OT win. Or the Steelers march down and get a FG to win 21-18. Other issues in that game still present.

 

I get that we had another attempt at the two point conversion and I don't put that beyond Brady or Rodgers or even, Wilson, but I don't put that in the same vein as if Smith f'ed up that first conversion attempt or failed to score the 6 preceding (I know, a rushing TD).

 

Either way, we have a better chance at winning the Super Bowl with Smith and one has to win the lottery. Wahoo!!!

Again, I am not saying or blaming smith for losing. I am saying he has not showed that he can win those games when it matters. There's a difference.

 

But, somehow this point of mine makes me a Smith hater and gets people's panties in a bunch.

[Chief's Arrow 0]

I gave no mention of the Colts game where he had a bunch of stats. I'm talking about the Niners versus the Saints playoff game. That was clutch. Was it a perfect game? No. Was he without help? No. But he won't be without help this year either, even if the defense isn't playing as well. But I just care if we win or not, not credit or blame.

Clutch has nothing to do with perfect game or stats. Also, you say you just care about winning, not analyzing why we won or lost, which I take it to be credit or blame. THat's fine if you are not into analyzing. I am. I like to point out my thoughts on the whys of winning and losing; and projecting that analysis to have an expectation of making playoffs and then our chances in said playoffs.

 

Also, if this defense keeps struggling like it is...Smith is going to have to have many stat and clutch games in order to make playoffs and succeed in them.

[PhataLerror 370]

Please. Smith was below avg last year.

Did I say, "Smith"? More on this later.

[KCSLC2008 606]

Clutch has nothing to do with perfect game or stats. Also, you say you just care about winning, not analyzing why we won or lost, which I take it to be credit or blame. THat's fine if you are not into analyzing. I am. I like to point out my thoughts on the whys of winning and losing; and projecting that analysis to have an expectation of making playoffs and then our chances in said playoffs.

 

Also, if this defense keeps struggling like it is...Smith is going to have to have many stat and clutch games in order to make playoffs and succeed in them.

Oh, I do analyze. I guess I was being too loose with what I was saying. What I meant was if we win the Super Bowl with an 150 yard game from Smith, I'm not going to be stressing about "why didn't Smith win it for us!" And if we lose, I'm not going to blame everyone and their mama besides Smith. I will look and analyze the game as objectively as a fan can. Looking forward, I'm not going to use the past to state the future when it takes just three games (albeit huge games on the biggest stages). We need to get hot and Smith to play like he's capable, not expected to. Coach well, play well, Smith can play clutch and hopefully we won't have to.

 

As far as clutch not being the same as perfect or stats, that was my point. The Saints game wasn't perfect but it was clutch. The Colts game was not clutch but stats. I was admitting it wasn't complete but it was clutch. Smith could have played it safe and gotten the field goal for OT but instead threw an anticipatory throw to Davis that if Davis stumbled it would be a game losing INT, much like clutch Russell Wilson in the SB INT.

[PhataLerror 370]

As far as clutch not being the same as perfect or stats, that was my point. The Saints game wasn't perfect but it was clutch. The Colts game was not clutch but stats. I was admitting it wasn't complete but it was clutch. Smith could have played it safe and gotten the field goal for OT but instead threw an anticipatory throw to Davis that if Davis stumbled it would be a game losing INT, much like clutch Russell Wilson in the SB INT.

I'll disagree with the take on the Colts inasmuch as Smith had to make the best of a depleted roster. Charles was gone on the first drive, and it's not Smith's fault that Bowe was a lousy WR1 and couldn't keep his feet in bounds on fourth down.

 

It also seemed like Smith was clutch in the Patriots game, but everyone forgets that Smith had little to work with once Maclin was unavailable and Kelce was taken away by defenses. Smith hardly had to do anything against the Texans, and Smith couldn't block for himself in the Steelers game. And if we're going to go back to 2011, Smith was the better quarterback in the NFC Conference Championship. He just didn't get the sheer number of possessions Eli Manning got.

[KCSLC2008 606]

I'll disagree with the take on the Colts inasmuch as Smith had to make the best of a depleted roster. Charles was gone on the first drive, and it's not Smith's fault that Bowe was a lousy WR1 and couldn't keep his feet in bounds on fourth down.

 

It also seemed like Smith was clutch in the Patriots game, but everyone forgets that Smith had little to work with once Maclin was unavailable and Kelce was taken away by defenses. Smith hardly had to do anything against the Texans, and Smith couldn't block for himself in the Steelers game. And if we're going to go back to 2011, Smith was the better quarterback in the NFC Conference Championship. He just didn't get the sheer number of possessions Eli Manning got.

Was definitely looking at the team game instead of Smith (the topic of the discussion - my fault). But I think I was over-concerned with when the numbers came, earlier - a bit of a false dichotomy.

 

Bowe said he could have gotten his foot down n bounds but felt he was going to break his foot. Break it then, Bowe! Smith has a chance for a concussion or torn shoulder every drop back, plant your f'ing leg, Bowe!

[Chief's Arrow 0]

Oh, I do analyze. I guess I was being too loose with what I was saying. What I meant was if we win the Super Bowl with an 150 yard game from Smith, I'm not going to be stressing about "why didn't Smith win it for us!" And if we lose, I'm not going to blame everyone and their mama besides Smith. I will look and analyze the game as objectively as a fan can. Looking forward, I'm not going to use the past to state the future when it takes just three games (albeit huge games on the biggest stages). We need to get hot and Smith to play like he's capable, not expected to. Coach well, play well, Smith can play clutch and hopefully we won't have to.

 

As far as clutch not being the same as perfect or stats, that was my point. The Saints game wasn't perfect but it was clutch. The Colts game was not clutch but stats. I was admitting it wasn't complete but it was clutch. Smith could have played it safe and gotten the field goal for OT but instead threw an anticipatory throw to Davis that if Davis stumbled it would be a game losing INT, much like clutch Russell Wilson in the SB INT.

You pretty much just regurgitated what I said about myself, while hinting that I am blaming. I don't know in what other language to be clear that there is a difference between blaming Smith for a loss and stating that Smith was not able to win it when he had the chance to win. If you know, and I keep repeating how I am not blaming, why do you keep using that word and phrase? Is that all you are hanging on? Does it make your argument, as you write it, seem like it makes a point if you just slip "I'm not blaming" in it?

 

Again, I keep telling you that there is a difference between stats and clutch and you keep contradicting yourself. You say Saints was clutch but Colts was not. You keep bringing up words like "complete," like it wasn't complete but it was clutch. You don't need to bring up "perfect/complete/etc." and then say it was clutch.

 

When you have the sample size of only ONE, then that is not enough to hang your hat on. Once is not a pattern. Four or five is a pattern. Being clutch becomes believable when he shows it in a consistent basis. You can't say he's clutch.

 

The closest thing you can say is that he is capable of being clutch. Not until you show it in consistent basis does being able to be anything makes the anything true.

[Chief's Arrow 0]

I'll disagree with the take on the Colts inasmuch as Smith had to make the best of a depleted roster. Charles was gone on the first drive, and it's not Smith's fault that Bowe was a lousy WR1 and couldn't keep his feet in bounds on fourth down.

 

It also seemed like Smith was clutch in the Patriots game, but everyone forgets that Smith had little to work with once Maclin was unavailable and Kelce was taken away by defenses. Smith hardly had to do anything against the Texans, and Smith couldn't block for himself in the Steelers game. And if we're going to go back to 2011, Smith was the better quarterback in the NFC Conference Championship. He just didn't get the sheer number of possessions Eli Manning got.

This person does not understand what we are saying. He's not used to subtlety, or cannot understand it. I think I understand now that he only understands blunt points.