Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
It's true many things have to be in place, but the "luxury" that you get with Smith is that you have a QB that can win (including in the playoffs), but you don't have to pay him an astronomical salary which opens up more cap space for those special players on D. I already mentioned San Diego as an option. If I were in Kansas City or Cleveland, I'd take a look at Smith as well. They can have a relatively young QB (he would only be 29), that can lead, keep the team in position to win, and use the high draft picks they are certain to get on defensive players/playmakers and a receiver. I'd say Kansas City with the team they have now is easily 6-10/7-9 with Smith as the quarterback. Throw in some extra players and you have a team that could contend for a wildcard spot.
He won 1 game. Romo has won more games. Grossman has as well. Not to put down Smith, but it's a terribly small sample size, is it not? He's lost as many games as he has won. I personally do not think Smith can lead a team that is bad enough to need a QB.
So you think Alex Smith gives KC 6 extra wins this year? How? They have been blown out in virtually every game and have rarely been in the lead. How do the Chiefs win 6 extra games with a weaker system, OC, receivers/te's, defense than the 9ers along with a QB who consistently ranks at the bottom of the league in 3rd down conversion and plays very conservative?
Not bashing, I just think the Chiefs are really, really bad and not even a good QB could make them a decent team. Their issues go beyond QB. I personally think Smith would be more successful with a more stable team like a San Diego or Philly. He'd be decent on the Jets too if they replaced Sporano. Kansas City, though? No way.