PDA

View Full Version : Why not start now? Demand Herm's resignation....



stlchief
09-10-2007, 11:29 PM
Why wait? The only reason we made the play-offs last year is there was a trace of the previous offense left. By the time we got to Indy, it was dead and gone, only a memory.

The Indy loss and the first game of the season: decent defense, sucky offense.

I will be the first to say it officially:

Unless the Chiefs come up with something other than line-of-scrimmage plays next week, then I say it is time for Herm to resign.

I bet Solari would open it up immediately and least we wouldn't be predicatible...

Chiefster
09-10-2007, 11:31 PM
I don't demand his resignation; Herm getting fired works for me.

Canada
09-11-2007, 03:14 AM
If he ain't got nothin goin on in week 3 when i come down there, I will deal with him myself!!

royalswin100games
09-11-2007, 03:16 AM
I don't demand his resignation; Herm getting fired works for me.

If that happens, Carl's gonna have to get fired too. Not that that would be bad. More drinks!
:bananen_smilies046:

Chiefster
09-11-2007, 03:24 AM
If that happens, Carl's gonna have to get fired too. Not that that would be bad. More drinks!
:bananen_smilies046:

A two-fer...Sweet!

Guru
09-11-2007, 03:32 AM
www.firehermedwardsnow.comm

Chiefster
09-11-2007, 03:35 AM
www.firehermedwardsnow.comm (http://www.firehermedwardsnow.comm)

Insightful and informative! :D

wolfpack
09-11-2007, 10:48 AM
clark so far is just like his dad. how both could sit up in their rooms and not blick a eye on how the chiefs cant get to the super bowl. excluding how the queen can fill the stadiun and make money for them. sooner or later i would think pride would sit in, but the almighty greenback still talks the loudest.

swmochiefsfan
09-11-2007, 11:26 AM
All sounds fine and good but they ain't going pay no mind to us anyhow.The only way they'll take notice is if fans stop going to the games and thats not going to happen any time soon, I'll keep going.

Chiefster
09-11-2007, 12:11 PM
clark so far is just like his dad. how both could sit up in their rooms and not blick a eye on how the chiefs cant get to the super bowl. excluding how the queen can fill the stadiun and make money for them. sooner or later i would think pride would sit in, but the almighty greenback still talks the loudest.

Pride obviously has it's price.

Chiefster
09-11-2007, 12:11 PM
All sounds fine and good but they ain't going pay no mind to us anyhow.The only way they'll take notice is if fans stop going to the games and thats not going to happen any time soon, I'll keep going.

Agreed!

TheLateGreat#58Fan
09-11-2007, 12:25 PM
I just wanna hear Clark give us a valid reason why you would hold on to a GM this long who cant build a team that can do anything in the playoffs unless Joe Montana is there- Why do they keep him- S*** bring Shottenheimer back-LOL atleast we were on Monday Night in those days. The best thing Hunt has going for him is KC fans have heart and are the most loyal in the league- as much as I or anyone complains about the organization- its cuz watching them lose, and especially lose in the playoffs its heartbreaking.
Chiefs fans are all heart and I am glad to be one

even the its lonely down here-not alot of KC fans in Atlanta-Hey atleast we didnt draft Mike Vick

Chiefster
09-11-2007, 12:30 PM
I just wanna hear Clark give us a valid reason why you would hold on to a GM this long who cant build a team that can do anything in the playoffs unless Joe Montana is there- Why do they keep him- S*** bring Shottenheimer back-LOL atleast we were on Monday Night in those days. The best thing Hunt has going for him is KC fans have heart and are the most loyal in the league- as much as I or anyone complains about the organization- its cuz watching them lose, and especially lose in the playoffs its heartbreaking.
Chiefs fans are all heart and I am glad to be one

even the its lonely down here-not alot of KC fans in Atlanta-Hey atleast we didnt draft Mike Vick

I've been wondering about that and asking that exact same question for quite some time now.

stlchief
09-12-2007, 05:17 AM
I just wanna hear Clark give us a valid reason why you would hold on to a GM this long who cant build a team that can do anything in the playoffs unless Joe Montana is there- Why do they keep him- S*** bring Shottenheimer back-LOL atleast we were on Monday Night in those days. The best thing Hunt has going for him is KC fans have heart and are the most loyal in the league- as much as I or anyone complains about the organization- its cuz watching them lose, and especially lose in the playoffs its heartbreaking.
Chiefs fans are all heart and I am glad to be one

even the its lonely down here-not alot of KC fans in Atlanta-Hey atleast we didnt draft Mike Vick

One reason:

$$$$

The Chiefs are not a publicly traded company, so who knows how much $ they generate, but it stands to reason, the Hunts are making a pretty penny. You have a GM who keeps bringing in the money and fields some great teams with unbelievable talent (think of the records / think of the pro-bowlers).

How could you make a change? I think we went 13-3, 10-6, 9-7 the last three years. Not too shabby. If you have the talen to win 30+ games in 3 years, than I think the GM has done a good job. At some point, the coach & players have to get it done....

I won't say I'm a Peterson fan, but I'm not sure I understand all the frustration is with him...

Edwards --> it's clear...

Three7s
09-12-2007, 06:09 AM
Here's the Chief's records since the beginning of Dick Vermeil until now. 6-10, 8-8, 13-3, 8-8, 10-6, 9-7. Not awful, but only one really good year really. Even if the Chiefs did make it past the Colts in 03, I doubt we could beat the Patriots, even here. If we could just combine the great defense and great offense, then you have superbowl.

Guru
09-12-2007, 06:17 AM
Here's the Chief's records since the beginning of Dick Vermeil until now. 6-10, 8-8, 13-3, 8-8, 10-6, 9-7. Not awful, but only one really good year really. Even if the Chiefs did make it past the Colts in 03, I doubt we could beat the Patriots, even here. If we could just combine the great defense and great offense, then you have superbowl.

And that coaches name is Dick Shottenheimer or Marty Vermeil.

Chiefster
09-12-2007, 11:25 AM
Now we have Herm Peterson.

DrunkHillbilly
09-12-2007, 01:15 PM
One reason:

$$$$

The Chiefs are not a publicly traded company, so who knows how much $ they generate, but it stands to reason, the Hunts are making a pretty penny. You have a GM who keeps bringing in the money and fields some great teams with unbelievable talent (think of the records / think of the pro-bowlers).

How could you make a change? I think we went 13-3, 10-6, 9-7 the last three years. Not too shabby. If you have the talen to win 30+ games in 3 years, than I think the GM has done a good job. At some point, the coach & players have to get it done....

I won't say I'm a Peterson fan, but I'm not sure I understand all the frustration is with him...

Edwards --> it's clear...

The problem with him is that over the last 5, 6 years, he hasn't brought in key players at a few crucial positions.

WR...have always been avg AT VERY BEST!!

Defense...continues to bring in aging vets that are at the end of their careers. All of the contenders have or have had a stud or two on the defensive unit.

Now, it's the O line. Look how many O lineman were available in the off season these last few years. If you pay the money, they will come. Who wouldn't want to play in KC?? Everyone would!

We have had a stud RB for years and no receivers to force the other team to guard them. When your TE has the most catches for several years, there's a problem.

Now, we have two QB's that are questionable. We IMO, wasted a pick on Croyle because in two or trhee years we will be looking for another QB to replace him.

rbedgood
09-12-2007, 01:26 PM
The problem with him is that over the last 5, 6 years, he hasn't brought in key players at a few crucial positions.

WR...have always been avg AT VERY BEST!!

Defense...continues to bring in aging vets that are at the end of their careers. All of the contenders have or have had a stud or two on the defensive unit.

Now, it's the O line. Look how many O lineman were available in the off season these last few years. If you pay the money, they will come. Who wouldn't want to play in KC?? Everyone would!

We have had a stud RB for years and no receivers to force the other team to guard them. When your TE has the most catches for several years, there's a problem.

Now, we have two QB's that are questionable. We IMO, wasted a pick on Croyle because in two or trhee years we will be looking for another QB to replace him.

Very well said...rep added.

However the WR issue has begun to be addressed with the drafting of Bowe. His future is bright.

The way to build an O-line is not through the draft...it takes too long to develop the All-pro talent. Steal someone else's through free agency.

swmochiefsfan
09-12-2007, 01:58 PM
All well and good but you still have the problem of the O line starting to gel, this is a problem time can handle but why not take a little bit more and get a few in the draft and let them develop into a perrenial line.Something we can count on for years to come.KC has a reputation for being some kind of retirement home and I am not saying that is neccesarily a bad thing ie Marcus Allen, Montana and so on, but if they truly want to get young then do it and quit *****footin around.Just a thought.

Chiefster
09-12-2007, 02:07 PM
The problem with him is that over the last 5, 6 years, he hasn't brought in key players at a few crucial positions.

WR...have always been avg AT VERY BEST!!

Defense...continues to bring in aging vets that are at the end of their careers. All of the contenders have or have had a stud or two on the defensive unit.

Now, it's the O line. Look how many O lineman were available in the off season these last few years. If you pay the money, they will come. Who wouldn't want to play in KC?? Everyone would!

We have had a stud RB for years and no receivers to force the other team to guard them. When your TE has the most catches for several years, there's a problem.

Now, we have two QB's that are questionable. We IMO, wasted a pick on Croyle because in two or trhee years we will be looking for another QB to replace him.

Good post! Agreed!

Three7s
09-12-2007, 02:53 PM
Peterson saying he wanted to get young is a bunch of crap. Defense is a bit younger, but not enough. Offense is about as old as fossils with the exception of Bowe and a couple others. Peterson is making it obvious that he'd rather win now, which is screwing up everything. We have one of the highest amounts of salary cap available in the NFL, only a few teams beat us. I'm interested in seeing what Peterson does next year to this team, if he's even still here, which I'm sure he will be.

DrunkHillbilly
09-12-2007, 03:21 PM
Peterson saying he wanted to get young is a bunch of crap. Defense is a bit younger, but not enough. Offense is about as old as fossils with the exception of Bowe and a couple others. Peterson is making it obvious that he'd rather win now, which is screwing up everything. We have one of the highest amounts of salary cap available in the NFL, only a few teams beat us. I'm interested in seeing what Peterson does next year to this team, if he's even still here, which I'm sure he will be.

Making it clear that he would rather win now??????????????????????

Have you seen our team?????? I sure would like to see what he has done to "win now"!!!!!

Normally when you have an organization that wants to win now, they go out and overpay veterans that have proved themselves and are on the downside of thier career. We have done none of that!!! Hell, I wish we were in that catagory!! See my post earlier in this thread and you will see that he has done none of what is required to "win now"!!!!

Three7s
09-12-2007, 06:32 PM
We haven't? I guess signing an old man named Ty Law, resigning TG and LJ to monsterous contracts were just figments of my imagination. There is no way either of those 3 players will go beyond their contracts except maybe LJ. Huard is old, Croyle is the replacement, so what? If he doesn't play smarter we'll be back to square 1 with the QB. I'm just saying, if he was truely devoted to "going young" then he wouldn't have given TG and LJ such big contracts. I can forgive Law's since he was signed before "going young".

Chiefster
09-12-2007, 06:42 PM
We haven't? I guess signing an old man named Ty Law, resigning TG and LJ to monsterous contracts were just figments of my imagination. There is no way either of those 3 players will go beyond their contracts except maybe LJ. Huard is old, Croyle is the replacement, so what? If he doesn't play smarter we'll be back to square 1 with the QB. I'm just saying, if he was truely devoted to "going young" then he wouldn't have given TG and LJ such big contracts. I can forgive Law's since he was signed before "going young".

I agree with what you're saying but on the other hand I also think it's important to balance the team with some experienced, seasoned vets while "getting younger".

chief31
09-12-2007, 09:21 PM
The problem with him is that over the last 5, 6 years, he hasn't brought in key players at a few crucial positions.

WR...have always been avg AT VERY BEST!!

Defense...continues to bring in aging vets that are at the end of their careers. All of the contenders have or have had a stud or two on the defensive unit.

Now, it's the O line. Look how many O lineman were available in the off season these last few years. If you pay the money, they will come. Who wouldn't want to play in KC?? Everyone would!

We have had a stud RB for years and no receivers to force the other team to guard them. When your TE has the most catches for several years, there's a problem.

Now, we have two QB's that are questionable. We IMO, wasted a pick on Croyle because in two or trhee years we will be looking for another QB to replace him.

You are baiting me, aren't you? Lol. Why is it a problem to have a great tight end?

DrunkHillbilly
09-12-2007, 09:32 PM
We haven't? I guess signing an old man named Ty Law, resigning TG and LJ to monsterous contracts were just figments of my imagination. There is no way either of those 3 players will go beyond their contracts except maybe LJ. Huard is old, Croyle is the replacement, so what? If he doesn't play smarter we'll be back to square 1 with the QB. I'm just saying, if he was truely devoted to "going young" then he wouldn't have given TG and LJ such big contracts. I can forgive Law's since he was signed before "going young".

I thought it was a given that you knew a team has to have a few players that can actually play to be competitive.

Ty Law, he is one of the aging vets I was speaking of. His numbers were down last year from the past and I'm afraid it will be more of the same this year. I hope I'm wrong but.....

Besides signing guys that were damned near untradeable because they are both so damn good, what has he done to win now???

rbedgood
09-12-2007, 09:34 PM
Having a great TE isn't the problem...but only having 1 receiving target is the problem. Tony G has the skills of a WR, but even most teams with only 1 legit WR (team not to be mentioned) has Evans for example. He struggles to do anything because they have no other legit WR, and their TE sucks. However teams like New Orleans can make any TE look good (see Zach Hilton last year) because they have other legit receiving options.

TG is a very legit option for KC, and I think Bowe will become one. Kennison was a legit option, but he's getting past his prime.

chief31
09-12-2007, 09:39 PM
Having a great TE isn't the problem...but only having 1 receiving target is the problem. Tony G has the skills of a WR, but even most teams with only 1 legit WR (team not to be mentioned) has Evans for example. He struggles to do anything because they have no other legit WR, and their TE sucks. However teams like New Orleans can make any TE look good (see Zach Hilton last year) because they have other legit receiving options.

TG is a very legit option for KC, and I think Bowe will become one. Kennison was a legit option, but he's getting past his prime.

No argument about the current reciever needs. But when Vermiel was here, ( Seein' as how the statement was that we have been needing a reciever for years,) a reciever was far from the top of the teams "needs" list. When you have the top offense in the league and the worst defense, reciever is not the position that needs addressed.

I only brought it up because hillbilly and I have had this argument before.

rbedgood
09-12-2007, 09:44 PM
I don't think WR is an issue anymore...they have the guy of the future IMO..(Bowe), and then you can fill in others as WR2.

THe big issue can be addressed as they have salary cap room...go get a couple of above average guys for the O-line, and a top tier strong safety and you improve both sides of the ball almost instantly.

DrunkHillbilly
09-12-2007, 09:45 PM
You are baiting me, aren't you? Lol. Why is it a problem to have a great tight end?

It is not a problem at all!!! I love it! However, when everyone knows that we are going to throw to him more than we will to our receivers, it's a problem!! We can go through this again but all I'm saying is that we need receivers to take people out of the box and to give TG a break once in a while!

***** between catching balls and helping the O line block on 75% of the plays, that dude has got to be beat!!!

DrunkHillbilly
09-12-2007, 09:50 PM
No argument about the current reciever needs. But when Vermiel was here, ( Seein' as how the statement was that we have been needing a reciever for years,) a reciever was far from the top of the teams "needs" list. When you have the top offense in the league and the worst defense, reciever is not the position that needs addressed.

I only brought it up because hillbilly and I have had this argument before.

This is where we will just have to agree to disagree because I think it was a glaring problem back in the Dicky days! Just because we were a good team and got to the playoffs a time or two doesn't mean we didn't need to address the position. If we would have had another viable receiver or two, we would have really been good!!

chief31
09-12-2007, 09:57 PM
It is not a problem at all!!! I love it! However, when everyone knows that we are going to throw to him more than we will to our receivers, it's a problem!! We can go through this again but all I'm saying is that we need receivers to take people out of the box and to give TG a break once in a while!

***** between catching balls and helping the O line block on 75% of the plays, that dude has got to be beat!!!

I don't get how it is a problem having a tight end who gets thrown to more than the recievers? Is it also a problem if you have one reciever who is going to be thrown to more than the rest of the team? If you can pass the ball successfully, what difference does it make what the name of the position the reciever plays is?

Again, let me make clear that I believe that this and last seasons there is a much bigger need for a top-flight WR. But that before that, there wasn't.

chief31
09-12-2007, 09:58 PM
This is where we will just have to agree to disagree because I think it was a glaring problem back in the Dicky days! Just because we were a good team and got to the playoffs a time or two doesn't mean we didn't need to address the position. If we would have had another viable receiver or two, we would have really been good!!

We were really good...on offense. We needed defense, not more offense.

DrunkHillbilly
09-12-2007, 10:07 PM
I don't get how it is a problem having a tight end who gets thrown to more than the recievers? Is it also a problem if you have one reciever who is going to be thrown to more than the rest of the team? If you can pass the ball successfully, what difference does it make what the name of the position the reciever plays is?

Again, let me make clear that I believe that this and last seasons there is a much bigger need for a top-flight WR. But that before that, there wasn't.

It is only a problem when you only have 1 receiver that is worth a damn. The more options you have to make the D cover, the better. When they know that you won't throw to certain players, it makes it easier for them to double the guy they know you will throw the ball to.

I agree that other positions needed to be addressed but they haven't had a top teir receiver maybe in the history of the team!! Teams that win have at least one top teir receiver and one or two avg receivers. Or....they have two or three better than avg receivers. We on the other hand haven't had either of those two.

chief31
09-12-2007, 10:57 PM
It is only a problem when you only have 1 receiver that is worth a damn. The more options you have to make the D cover, the better. When they know that you won't throw to certain players, it makes it easier for them to double the guy they know you will throw the ball to.

I agree that other positions needed to be addressed but they haven't had a top teir receiver maybe in the history of the team!! Teams that win have at least one top teir receiver and one or two avg receivers. Or....they have two or three better than avg receivers. We on the other hand haven't had either of those two.

This is absurd. Who were the Patriots recievers a year ago? The Chargers? The Bears? The Steelers from '06? Some teams manage to win with a great recievers group, others do it without. Having a top-flight tight end equals one top-flight WR.

If the Vermiel Chiefs hadn't thrown the ball to Gonzales so often, then Kennison and Morton/Parker would have had much better statistics and we wouldn't have been hearing anyhting about their WR "need".

DrunkHillbilly
09-12-2007, 11:01 PM
This is absurd. Who were the Patriots recievers a year ago? The Chargers? The Bears? The Steelers from '06? Some teams manage to win with a great recievers group, others do it without. Having a top-flight tight end equals one top-flight WR.

If the Vermiel Chiefs hadn't thrown the ball to Gonzales so often, then Kennison and Morton/Parker would have had much better statistics and we wouldn't have been hearing anyhting about their WR "need".

Colts??????

Yes there are exceptions but those teams also have things we don't have. Like the best D, arguably the best QB, best player in the game. I just think if you are close to having the best offense in football, why not go out and get that one missing piece?? Not saying ignor the other needs of the team. It is possible to do both!!!!! Especially with all the cap room we have. Your right, having a great TE does equal a good receiver but it takes away another aspect of the game for your offense. They guard him all the time and not the receivers!

BTW, Hines Ward was better than any WR we have had in years.

chief31
09-12-2007, 11:09 PM
Colts??????

Right...
Some teams manage to win with a great recievers group, others do it without.

In oppositon of your statement...
Teams that win have at least one top teir receiver and one or two avg receivers. Or....they have two or three better than avg receivers. We on the other hand haven't had either of those two.

chief31
09-12-2007, 11:14 PM
Colts??????...Cardinals?????


BTW, Hines Ward was better than any WR we have had in years.

Who were the above average recievers that go with him (Ward)? Randle El? The kick returner? AKA Dante Hall?

DrunkHillbilly
09-12-2007, 11:30 PM
Who were the above average recievers that go with him (Ward)? Randle El? The kick returner? AKA Dante Hall?

Your so black and white dude!!!!! I said we needed to address other issues!

Santonio Holmes...8 or 900 yds, 3 or 4 TD's
Nate Washington...7 or 800 yds, 5 or 6 TD's

Chiefs receivers
Kennison..8 or 900 yds, 4 or 5 TD's
Parker...4 or 500 yds, any TD's???
Hall...200 yds, maybe 1 TD

Cardinals

Rookie QB
Worst offensive line in football

Three7s
09-12-2007, 11:38 PM
There's a lot of teams that don't have great wide outs that have fine offenses. I still don't think the Chargers offense is all that great. LT makes it look REALLY good, that's what a good RB does, just like Priest did. Gates is a great TE, probably gonna be better than TG. Their WRs are average though, a lot like ours. Chargers are obviously much better on offense than us now, I'm just saying during our glory days of offense, it's a pretty viable comparison imo.
You can wipe the receiver problem out the window if Bowe and Sippio pan out to be the real deal. I just hope we don't get a drama queen ball hog.:D

Chiefster
09-12-2007, 11:47 PM
There's a lot of teams that don't have great wide outs that have fine offenses. I still don't think the Chargers offense is all that great. LT makes it look REALLY good, that's what a good RB does, just like Priest did. Gates is a great TE, probably gonna be better than TG. Their WRs are average though, a lot like ours. Chargers are obviously much better on offense than us now, I'm just saying during our glory days of offense, it's a pretty viable comparison imo.
You can wipe the receiver problem out the window if Bowe and Sippio pan out to be the real deal. I just hope we don't get a drama queen ball hog.:D


TO is not a member of the Chiefs. :D

DrunkHillbilly
09-12-2007, 11:48 PM
There's a lot of teams that don't have great wide outs that have fine offenses. I still don't think the Chargers offense is all that great. LT makes it look REALLY good, that's what a good RB does, just like Priest did. Gates is a great TE, probably gonna be better than TG. Their WRs are average though, a lot like ours. Chargers are obviously much better on offense than us now, I'm just saying during our glory days of offense, it's a pretty viable comparison imo.
You can wipe the receiver problem out the window if Bowe and Sippio pan out to be the real deal. I just hope we don't get a drama queen ball hog.:D

Your right, when you have the best player in the game, things are different.

chief31
09-12-2007, 11:54 PM
Your so black and white dude!!!!! I said we needed to address other issues!

Santonio Holmes...8 or 900 yds, 3 or 4 TD's
Nate Washington...7 or 800 yds, 5 or 6 TD's

Chiefs receivers
Kennison..8 or 900 yds, 4 or 5 TD's
Parker...4 or 500 yds, any TD's???
Hall...200 yds, maybe 1 TD

Cardinals

Rookie QB
Worst offensive line in football

My mistake... I meant the '05, Super Bowl Champion, Steelers. (The actual Super Bowl was in '06, while the season was '05.)

Chiefster
09-12-2007, 11:58 PM
My mistake... I meant the '05, Super Bowl Champion, Steelers. (The actual Super Bowl was in '06, while the season was '05.)

See, I think they ought to have pre-season in July thus starting the regular season in August so that the Super Bowl is played in the same calender year as the regular season. Think Goodell would go for it? :D

rbedgood
09-13-2007, 12:20 AM
See, I think they ought to have pre-season in July thus starting the regular season in August so that the Super Bowl is played in the same calender year as the regular season. Think Goodell would go for it? :D

Super Bowl for Christmas...sign me up...

Chiefster
09-13-2007, 12:38 AM
Super Bowl for Christmas...sign me up...


No doubt! Think of the kind of draw that would be. Ticket Master would be advertising SB tickets in a Holiday package deal. :lol:

Canada
09-13-2007, 12:47 AM
See, I think they ought to have pre-season in July thus starting the regular season in August so that the Super Bowl is played in the same calender year as the regular season. Think Goodell would go for it? :D

Want me to call him tomorrow and see what he thinks?? :bananen_smilies046:

Chiefster
09-13-2007, 01:03 AM
Want me to call him tomorrow and see what he thinks?? :bananen_smilies046:

Go for it Canada; if anyone can convince him it you!:lol:

Canada
09-13-2007, 01:04 AM
Go for it Canada; if anyone can convince him it you!:lol:

Feed a man enough beer and the convincing is easy!! :drunkhb:

Chiefster
09-13-2007, 01:07 AM
Feed a man enough beer and the convincing is easy!! :drunkhb:


Do we need to take up collection for the purchase of said alcohol, or hold a telethon or something? :D

Canada
09-13-2007, 09:27 AM
Do we need to take up collection for the purchase of said alcohol, or hold a telethon or something? :D

Uh....yeah we do. :beer:

chief31
09-13-2007, 10:12 AM
See, I think they ought to have pre-season in July thus starting the regular season in August so that the Super Bowl is played in the same calender year as the regular season. Think Goodell would go for it? :D

This would be bad news for the Chiefs. It would take away some of our precious December home-field advantage.

Canada
09-13-2007, 10:58 AM
This would be bad news for the Chiefs. It would take away some of our precious December home-field advantage.

No it wouldn't, we would have home field advantage all through the playoffs and Super Bowl man!!! :bananen_smilies046:

chief31
09-13-2007, 11:03 AM
No it wouldn't, we would have home field advantage all through the playoffs and Super Bowl man!!! :bananen_smilies046:
Mmmmmmmmmm hmmmmmmmmmm...One of these years.

Canada
09-13-2007, 11:04 AM
Mmmmmmmmmm hmmmmmmmmmm...One of these years.

It's gonna happen :beer: 8 more days till I go to KC!!!!!

Chiefster
09-13-2007, 12:44 PM
It's gonna happen :beer: 8 more days till I go to KC!!!!!

Hey sneak that Chiefscrowd sign in dude!

Canada
09-13-2007, 01:37 PM
:lol:What's in it for me?? :beer:

Chiefster
09-13-2007, 03:25 PM
:lol:What's in it for me?? :beer:

Recognition???:lol::bananen_smilies046:

rbedgood
09-13-2007, 03:29 PM
:lol:What's in it for me?? :beer:
YouTube - Show me the MONEY [CLEAN]

Chiefster
09-13-2007, 03:57 PM
YouTube - Show me the MONEY [CLEAN] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MaKHxsGZ-A)


:lol::lol:

sling58
09-14-2007, 08:30 AM
If he ain't got nothin goin on in week 3 when i come down there, I will deal with him myself!!

I like that way you think.