I am looking for a mid-fat ski around 85mm underfoot to ski the east coast. I ski trees, ice, jumps, rails, powder, and moguls. I have been looking at the Line Chronic and K2 Extreme. I am wondering which one would be better for doing everything? Or is there a similar ski that is even better?

I don't know much about skiing east coast, because I live in Utah, but I actually have both of those skis laying around my house, and I have a lot of experience with both. They are both super solid skis, they have similar flex, and are very similar on the snow. The Chronics really pull ahead in the park, because they are closer to symmetrical than the Extremes. Chronics do a lot better center mounted, and overall are more of a park ski than Extremes. You really have to decide if you would rather have a ski more oriented towards the park, or more all-mountain. The Chronics can still rip the whole mountain, but the Extremes are more oriented to it. If I were to buy either pair, I'd go with the Chronics, becaues I'm willing to give up a bit of all-mountain performace for a better park ski. There is not really a ski out there that is "best for doing everything". And also, a lot of what your ski does best depends on where you mount your binding, which is a whole different topic. But the bottom line is, if you choose a ski that is "better for everything" that kinda means that it "sucks at everything" too. Because the best skis in every category are super specific to what they're designed for. Just choose something that you want your skis to be good for, then live with them when your skiing everything else. Thats what it really comes down too. Wow, long rant, Hope it helps a bit.