PDA

View Full Version : Just once I would like to see KC........



KcBigChief
03-02-2008, 06:55 PM
Just once Id like to see KC go after a Marquis player, a big name athlete, a leader. Don't even say Donnie Edwards either, we just brought him back home where he belongs.

Seriously, there are a LOT of Free Agents out there in key positions that could help this team ean respect in the league and confidense in the locker room. Every time I see teams like phill'y and the Brown's picking up great players to booster there roster I wonder to myself, what is KC doing? Who are they looking at? What free Agent are they talking too? But the answer is REALLY noone.

Every High profile free agent in the off-season is surrounded by possibility's and rumors and interest from numorous teams. So far this off-season NONE of these players have seen ANY interest from the chiefs.

Take Chad Johnson for example. Here is an ALL-PRO reciever who is wanting out of cinncinati. We need a top reciever as bad as ANY team in the league. He would be a GREAT complement to bowe, (Who by the way is going to see a TON of double coverage next year if we don't get him another threat.) plus he has said in the past that he loves playin in Arrowhead because of the loud croud and college atmosphere.

Now, I understand that chances are he's gonna go where he can get the biggest $$$$. BUT, so far KC has not lifted ONE finger or shown an ounce of interest in Johnson. Why? Can any of you tell me that he's not worth ATLEAST and interest. I would think we could atleast call his agent and see if there was ANY chance he'd be interested in KC.

Once you do that, ESPN catches wind of it and ALL of a sudden theres a story. Then little guys like us can feel better about our Chiefs in knowing we atleast showed some interest in a guy like Johnson.......BUT NO!!!!

Like Iv'e said before, get used to the Chiefs relying on the little guy. Fine by me, but I bet if you put Johnson on one side, Bowe on the other, Parker in the slot, Johnson in the backfield and Gonzo at tight end, you have a defensive cord. with a bigger cup of coffee in front of him than his usual.

ONE player can make a HUGE difference. We need more help than that but my point is we NEED to go get us a LEADER. ROOKIES don't lead very often, they are ROOKIES. Just a bunch of young, unproven guys who have more money than they had the day before.

Remember the quote, "rookie Mistakes". A leader helps minimize the amout of those a team has. If we don't find us a couple THREATS, leaders, dominate force, BIG NAME players......we are just another Buffalo Bill.

Bigchief :toast2:

jaytray
03-02-2008, 07:08 PM
Just once Id like to see KC go after a Marquis player, a big name athlete, a leader. Don't even say Donnie Edwards either, we just brought him back home where he belongs. Seriously, there are a LOT of Free Agents out there in key positions that could help this team ean respect in the league and confidense in the locker room. Every time I see teams like phill'y and the Brown's picking up great players to booster there roster I wonder to myself, what is KC doing? Who are they looking at? What free Agent are they talking too? But the answer is REALLY noone. Every High profile free agent in the off-season is surrounded by possibility's and rumors and interest from numorous teams. So far this off-season NONE of these players have seen ANY interest from the chiefs. Take Chad Johnson for example. Here is an ALL-PRO reciever who is wanting out of cinncinati. We need a top reciever as bad as ANY team in the league. He would be a GREAT complement to bowe, (Who by the way is going to see a TON of double coverage next year if we don't get him another threat.) plus he has said in the past that he loves playin in Arrowhead because of the loud croud and college atmosphere. Now, I understand that chances are he's gonna go where he can get the biggest $$$$. BUT, so far KC has not lifted ONE finger or shown an ounce of interest in Johnson. Why? Can any of you tell me that he's not worth ATLEAST and interest. I would think we could atleast call his agent and see if there was ANY chance he'd be interested in KC. Once you do that, ESPN catches wind of it and ALL of a sudden theres a story. Then little guys like us can feel better about our Chiefs in knowing we atleast showed some interest in a guy like Johnson.......BUT NO!!!!

Like Iv'e said before, get used to the Chiefs relying on the little guy. Fine by me, but I bet if you put Johnson on one side, Bowe on the other, Parker in the slot, Johnson in the backfield and Gonzo at tight end, you have a defensive cord. with a bigger cup of coffee in front of him than his usual. ONE player can make a HUGE difference. We need more help than that but my point is we NEED to go get us a LEADER. ROOKIES don't lead very often, they are ROOKIES. Just a bunch of young, unproven guys who have more money than they had the day before.

Remember the quote, "rookie Mistakes". A leader helps minimize the amout of those a team has. If we don't find us a couple THREATS, leaders, dominate force, BIG NAME players......we are just another Buffalo Bill.

Bigchief :toast2:

Agreed. This team has never gone after the "high profile" Player and probably never will under Carl Peterson.

I understand us wanting/needing to get younger. But you can't have a 54 man roster full of 24 year old guys trying to make a football team. Croyle is not a leader in the locker or on the field (yet) Johnson is Johnson and keeps to himself. Tony is a leader but how much can a all pro TE who gets double teamed every play really do?

Why can't we get younger but still and an all pro WR or OL?
This is just the new thinking of the chiefs and it's new thrifty owner if you ask me.

No super bowl in sight.

hermhater
03-02-2008, 07:23 PM
Not a chance.

Carl don't roll like that.

Canada
03-02-2008, 07:35 PM
You had me until you called us the Bills....Cleveland and Phily get big name players....who Fin cares, how many SuperBowls has it won them?? Good call, unless you mean you want to be like Buf and lose 4 times. Soundls like a great plan. Free Agency building is the reason that we are 4-12. Figure it out.

royalswin100games
03-02-2008, 07:40 PM
You had me until you called us the Bills....Cleveland and Phily get big name players....who Fin cares, how many SuperBowls has it won them?? Good call, unless you mean you want to be like Buf and lose 4 times. Soundls like a great plan. Free Agency building is the reason that we are 4-12. Figure it out.

Absolutely correct. Look at the(i'm gonna throw up) Pats. Most of their success is due to good drafting.

Three7s
03-02-2008, 09:21 PM
The key is to draft good young talent, then when the need arises, go after some free agents as an upgrade if you can't draft them, or the players you did draft need time to grow.

Canada
03-02-2008, 09:27 PM
I jsut think it is funny that people are complaining that we missed out on the highest paid player in NFL history. Damn...we coulda spent all our cap money in one shot.

hermhater
03-02-2008, 09:30 PM
I jsut think it is funny that people are complaining that we missed out on the highest paid player in NFL history. Damn...we coulda spent all our cap money in one shot.

Who?

royalswin100games
03-02-2008, 09:34 PM
Who?

I think he's referring to Chad Johnson. I can't read minds... yet.
:toast2:

hermhater
03-02-2008, 09:38 PM
I think he's referring to Chad Johnson. I can't read minds... yet.
:toast2:

Can you do Jedi mind tricks... yet?

:bananen_smilies046:

royalswin100games
03-02-2008, 09:42 PM
Can you do Jedi mind tricks... yet?

:bananen_smilies046:

Sure. Carl, these aren't the players you're looking for.

royalswin100games
03-02-2008, 09:44 PM
Sure. Carl, these aren't the players you're looking for.

You will let these players pass. You don't need to see their identification, they're not good enough.

Canada
03-02-2008, 09:45 PM
Who?

Sorry, I meant lineman....Faneca. 40 million for 5 years

royalswin100games
03-02-2008, 09:47 PM
Sorry, I meant lineman....Faneca. 40 million for 5 years

I thought we should've gone after Faneca, but that was before the jets gave him a truckload of money. He's not worth that salary.

hermhater
03-02-2008, 09:49 PM
You guys are funny.

royalswin100games
03-02-2008, 09:51 PM
You guys are funny.

Funny like how, am I here to amuse you? How am I funny?:comeandgetsome:

hermhater
03-02-2008, 10:02 PM
Funny like how, am I here to amuse you? How am I funny?:comeandgetsome:


Funny like a boil on my ***.

:biggrin:

royalswin100games
03-02-2008, 10:08 PM
Funny like a boil on my ***.

:biggrin:

Allright, I go goodfella's on you and you gotta bring up an infection on your backside. Go pop that thing. You'll feel much better. It'll be rewarding, like punching Carl in the face.

:bananen_smilies046:

hermhater
03-02-2008, 10:12 PM
Allright, I go goodfella's on you and you gotta bring up an infection on your backside. Go pop that thing. You'll feel much better. It'll be rewarding, like punching Carl in the face.

:bananen_smilies046:

I knew what you were talking about, just too hard to follow Pesci!

:bananen_smilies046:

royalswin100games
03-02-2008, 10:16 PM
I knew what you were talking about, just too hard to follow Pesci!

:bananen_smilies046:

Yeah, I guess you're right, kinda weak.
:toast2:

hermhater
03-02-2008, 10:34 PM
Yeah, I guess you're right, kinda weak.
:toast2:

:bananen_smilies046:

Chiefster
03-02-2008, 10:36 PM
Carl actually has tried this strategy in the early to mid 90's with names like Joe Montana and Marcus Allen, and it didn't work because he failed to put the big name athletes with the either the proper supporting cast on the field or the right coaching staff.

DrunkHillbilly
03-02-2008, 10:42 PM
Carl actually has tried this strategy in the early to mid 90's with names like Joe Montana and Marcus Allen, and it didn't work because he failed to put the big name athletes with the either the proper supporting cast on the field or the right coaching staff.
I think he may be refferring to guys that are still in their prime. Neither of the previously mentioned were.

Coach
03-02-2008, 10:57 PM
It is definitely frustrating each year as the Chiefs never bring in any big names. But most teams don't. Only 1 team lands the superstar. Everyone else moans and groans about not getting them. I think the last big star that we got was Ty Law. That worked out well. :P

royalswin100games
03-02-2008, 11:00 PM
It is definitely frustrating each year as the Chiefs never bring in any big names. But most teams don't. Only 1 team lands the superstar. Everyone else moans and groans about not getting them. I think the last big star that we got was Ty Law. That worked out well. :P

IMO, Law worked out better than Surtain.

hermhater
03-02-2008, 11:08 PM
It is definitely frustrating each year as the Chiefs never bring in any big names. But most teams don't. Only 1 team lands the superstar. Everyone else moans and groans about not getting them. I think the last big star that we got was Ty Law. That worked out well. :P

Yeah, but this is the Chiefs!

We are supposed to have the superstars!

(I was super excited when we got Law, shows what I know!)


IMO, Law worked out better than Surtain.

I would argue that point. Surtain is pretty much worthless.

At least Law can cover a pylon!

:11:

texaschief
03-03-2008, 12:07 AM
ONE player can make a HUGE difference. We need more help than that but my point is we NEED to go get us a LEADER. ROOKIES don't lead very often, they are ROOKIES. Just a bunch of young, unproven guys who have more money than they had the day before.

Remember the quote, "rookie Mistakes". A leader helps minimize the amout of those a team has. If we don't find us a couple THREATS, leaders, dominate force, BIG NAME players......we are just another Buffalo Bill.



Ok....what? In one part of your post you're talking about how we need players like Chad Johnson and then you turn around and say we need leaders on this team....are you suggesting we need players like "i want to be traded" Chad Johnson to "lead" this team?

You have GOT to be joking. Not only would we have to sell the farm to bring that guy in, but while we're at it, why don't we just sign Randy Moss and trade for T.O. too. That way, we'll have 3 more cancers on this team to go along with LJ and JA.....nice.

hermhater
03-03-2008, 12:18 AM
Ok....what? In one part of your post you're talking about how we need players like Chad Johnson and then you turn around and say we need leaders on this team....are you suggesting we need players like "i want to be traded" Chad Johnson to "lead" this team?

You have GOT to be joking. Not only would we have to sell the farm to bring that guy in, but while we're at it, why don't we just sign Randy Moss and trade for T.O. too. That way, we'll have 3 more cancers on this team to go along with LJ and JA.....nice.

Those guys did ok last season, and have pretty good stats for their entire career.

Why does someone that calls out crappy players and decisions have to be a cancer?

You and Canada can go get stuffed!

:bananen_smilies046:

Canada
03-03-2008, 12:19 AM
Those guys did ok last season, and have pretty good stats for their entire career.

Why does someone that calls out crappy players and decisions have to be a cancer?

You and Canada can go get stuffed!

:bananen_smilies046:

HH...you are making me start to respect some of Queen Carls decisions!! :sign0098:

hermhater
03-03-2008, 12:23 AM
HH...you are making me start to respect some of Queen Carls decisions!! :sign0098:

Why is that?

Because I would like to have superstar O linemen to block for our superstar RB?

If you're gonna spend all that money on an offensive weapon, you give the offense ammunition to fire it!

:bananen_smilies046:

Canada
03-03-2008, 12:25 AM
Why is that?

Because I would like to have superstar O linemen to block for our superstar RB?

If you're gonna spend all that money on an offensive weapon, you give the offense ammunition to fire it!

:bananen_smilies046:

No, cause you think it would be a good idea to have LJ, TO Chad Johnson and Moss all on the same team.

P.S. The NFL does have a salary cap now. :bananen_smilies046:

I would love to see the Chiefs spend all their money on every F'in free agent out there if it would make everyone shut the F up about a 4-12 season cause it will happen again.

jaytray
03-03-2008, 12:33 AM
No, cause you think it would be a good idea to have LJ, TO Chad Johnson and Moss all on the same team.

P.S. The NFL does have a salary cap now. :bananen_smilies046:

I would love to see the Chiefs spend all their money on every F'in free agent out there if it would make everyone shut the F up about a 4-12 season cause it will happen again.

We are not asking for every FA on the market. We are asking our team... The team we pay good freaking money to watch 8 sundays a year to go out and spend money on a REAL FA! a 92 year Ty Law just doesn't do it for me, or a 35 year old donnie edwards.

Someone said that only a few teams a year sign all pro players out of FA. This is not true. Look at the signings already this year. Look what NE did last year. That team stacks up every year and is still able to stay under the cap. Drafting 10 players and throwing them out onto the field is the biggest pile of s*** I've ever heard IMO.

You know who's been drafting players and throwing them out onto the fields the past 5 years?
These guys

49ers
Lions
Dolphins
Saints (minus 1 good year)
Raiders. Raiders. Raiders. Raiders.

Canada
03-03-2008, 12:45 AM
soooo....what you are saying is that the Chiefs have not been competitive enough over the last few years? I didn't know that the other 27 teams in the league did not draft over the last five years. I don't know if you noticed, but when the Pats started winning SBs, it was through the draft. Now players want to go there to win a Championship. It makes me laugh that you say we don't sign any free agents, but we had Tony Richardson, Priest Holmes, Trent Green, Dante Hall, Ty Law (everyone was happy when we signed him and we would be having this conversation about him if he hadn't signed) The list goes on my frined. Draft to build a team and then go after FA's but if you think that buying our way out af a 4-12 season is the way to go then we will be back here before you know it.

texaschief
03-03-2008, 12:49 AM
You know who's been drafting players and throwing them out onto the fields the past 5 years?
These guys

49ers
Lions
Dolphins
Saints (minus 1 good year)
Raiders. Raiders. Raiders. Raiders.

.....and Patriots, Chargers, Jaguars, Steelers, Packers, Vikings, Giants....etc. You can't cherry pick.

The only reason the Pats were able to do what they did last year in FA is because they've done such a great job in the draft. You don't contend for a title for an entire decade by just signing Free Agents.

Just watch the Raiders. They did exactly what you wanted to do this offseason and blew their load on 3 guys....i wonder how good they're going to do.

You have to have a good 2 or 3 years of solid drafts before you can go out and start signing free agents to put your team over the top. This is year 3 in the draft. I personally would like to see four solid years in the draft before we start spending all our cap space on Free Agents, but don't be surprised to see the Chiefs make a huge splash in FA next year.

You have to lay the foundation before you begin construction. Foundation is layed during the draft, not Free Agency.

royalswin100games
03-03-2008, 01:06 AM
.....and Patriots, Chargers, Jaguars, Steelers, Packers, Vikings, Giants....etc. You can't cherry pick.

The only reason the Pats were able to do what they did last year in FA is because they've done such a great job in the draft. You don't contend for a title for an entire decade by just signing Free Agents.

Just watch the Raiders. They did exactly what you wanted to do this offseason and blew their load on 3 guys....i wonder how good they're going to do.

You have to have a good 2 or 3 years of solid drafts before you can go out and start signing free agents to put your team over the top. This is year 3 in the draft. I personally would like to see four solid years in the draft before we start spending all our cap space on Free Agents, but don't be surprised to see the Chiefs make a huge splash in FA next year.

You have to lay the foundation before you begin construction. Foundation is layed during the draft, not Free Agency.

Great points. All the greatest dynasties built through the draft. Steelers, Niners, Cowboys, Pats

Chiefster
03-03-2008, 01:13 AM
I think he may be refferring to guys that are still in their prime. Neither of the previously mentioned were.

Montana was definitely at the end of his career, but still had the tools and the talent. Marcus Allen was still prime time stock because of his years of inactivity in Oakland/LA.

hermhater
03-03-2008, 01:24 AM
What's this thread about anyways?

Chiefster
03-03-2008, 01:25 AM
What's this thread about anyways?


Why Peterson never drafts any big name FA.

texaschief
03-03-2008, 01:27 AM
What's this thread about anyways?

It's about all you Free Agent junkies wanting to sign big names with marginal talent to help this team get worse than the Raiders....

Hey, i got an idea for ya!!!!

We need a QB and a WR right?

LET'S JUST GO GET RANDY AND DANTE!!!!!!!!

It's ok, you can say it.....

i'm pure genius!!!

Chiefster
03-03-2008, 01:30 AM
It's about all you Free Agent junkies wanting to sign big names with marginal talent to help this team get worse than the Raiders....

Hey, i got an idea for ya!!!!

We need a QB and a WR right?

LET'S JUST GO GET RANDY AND DANTE!!!!!!!!

It's ok, you can say it.....

i'm pure genius!!!

Yep!

:lol::lol::lol:

hermhater
03-03-2008, 01:48 AM
Why Peterson never drafts any big name FA.

How eggsactly do you draft a Free Agent?

:sign0153:

(Don't be shy.)

hermhater
03-03-2008, 01:51 AM
It's about all you Free Agent junkies wanting to sign big names with marginal talent to help this team get worse than the Raiders....

Hey, i got an idea for ya!!!!

We need a QB and a WR right?

LET'S JUST GO GET RANDY AND DANTE!!!!!!!!

It's ok, you can say it.....

i'm pure genius!!!


I know you're talking about me, but I have never said we need a new QB.

I don't think it would hurt to get a second threat for WR in Free Agency (and a CB).

You are pure genius though, I'll give you that.

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/icons/icon4.gif

hermhater
03-03-2008, 01:55 AM
Yep!

:lol::lol::lol:

Stop agreeing with him!

:11:

texasachief you have wonderful ideas that would work well in Fantasy Football, but we shall see how your decisions (predictions) do in the draft.

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif

Chiefster
03-03-2008, 01:59 AM
I know you're talking about me, but I have never said we need a new QB.

I don't think it would hurt to get a second threat for WR in Free Agency (and a CB).

You are pure genius though, I'll give you that.

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/icons/icon4.gif

Hey! If I can't agree with him then neither can you.

chief31
03-03-2008, 02:22 AM
It seems to me that we have been getting big name free agents for years now.

'07 - Donnie Edwards

'06 - Ty Law

'05 - Surtain, K.Bell, and S. Knight.

All of those players were pro-bowlers a year or two before our aquiring them. (Or very close)

I agree that we don't want to go out on that expensive limb again, by signing big-name free agents. But I feel that we do need to fill some holes, and free agency is a major tool for doing so.

They can keep the names small for all I'm concerned, but for the love of absolutely anything, get J.A. a contract. Please. :D

hermhater
03-03-2008, 02:58 AM
It seems to me that we have been getting big name free agents for years now.

'07 - Donnie Edwards

'06 - Ty Law

'05 - Surtain, K.Bell, and S. Knight.

All of those players were pro-bowlers a year or two before our aquiring them. (Or very close)

I agree that we don't want to go out on that expensive limb again, by signing big-name free agents. But I feel that we do need to fill some holes, and free agency is a major tool for doing so.

They can keep the names small for all I'm concerned, but for the love of absolutely anything, get J.A. a contract. Please. :D

I don't like to beg...

Hah!

:bananen_smilies046:

texaschief
03-03-2008, 03:00 AM
Stop agreeing with him!

:11:

texasachief you have wonderful ideas that would work well in Fantasy Football, but we shall see how your decisions (predictions) do in the draft.

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif

The only "fantasy football" i see here is the idea of signing overpayed castoffs to rebuild a team around. If these players are everything they're hyped up to be, do you REALLY think their original teams would let them leave? Come on now.

hermhater
03-03-2008, 03:10 AM
The only "fantasy football" i see here is the idea of signing overpayed castoffs to rebuild a team around. If these players are everything they're hyped up to be, do you REALLY think their original teams would let them leave? Come on now.

So you agree with me!

:sign0098: :beer:

Chiefster
03-03-2008, 02:25 PM
How eggsactly do you draft a Free Agent?

:sign0153:

(Don't be shy.)

Ooops, I meant CP never signs any big name FA.

I was tired so....

GET OFF MY LAWN :sign0104:! :11: :D

DrunkHillbilly
03-03-2008, 02:37 PM
The only "fantasy football" i see here is the idea of signing overpayed castoffs to rebuild a team around. If these players are everything they're hyped up to be, do you REALLY think their original teams would let them leave? Come on now.
Yea your right, Moss was a terrible FA pick up for the Pats!!!! I think the point is that every single year there is one a few big names out there and the Chiefs NEVER even throw their hat in the ring!!! Don't even talk about possibly bringing in someone to even talk to and see if there is any interest on either side.

hermhater
03-03-2008, 02:42 PM
Yea your right, Moss was a terrible FA pick up for the Pats!!!! I think the point is that every single year there is one a few big names out there and the Chiefs NEVER even throw their hat in the ring!!! Don't even talk about possibly bringing in someone to even talk to and see if there is any interest on either side.

That's how Carl rolls.

With Herm here as well we will be even less likely to get FA's unless they come from the Jets.

Sad but true.

texaschief
03-03-2008, 02:45 PM
Yea your right, Moss was a terrible FA pick up for the Pats!!!! I think the point is that every single year there is one a few big names out there and the Chiefs NEVER even throw their hat in the ring!!! Don't even talk about possibly bringing in someone to even talk to and see if there is any interest on either side.

Ok, this is BS....First of all, Randy Moss wasn't a free agent last season. He was traded for. The Pats gave up a 4th round pick. If we had done that, we wouldn't have Kolby. His name wasn't even being mentioned as a trade target until the Pats just swooped in and picked him up.

Second, I never said FAs were all bad. They're just not for teams who are trying to rebuild, that's all. Do you really think a volitile personality like Moss' would be a good fit in KC? There's a lot more to Moss than his ability.

royalswin100games
03-03-2008, 02:49 PM
Ok, this is BS....First of all, Randy Moss wasn't a free agent last season. He was traded for. The Pats gave up a 4th round pick. If we had done that, we wouldn't have Kolby. His name wasn't even being mentioned as a trade target until the Pats just swooped in and picked him up.

Second, I never said FAs were all bad. They're just not for teams who are trying to rebuild, that's all. Do you really think a volitile personality like Moss' would be a good fit in KC? There's a lot more to Moss than his ability.

We need to set up a Crowd octagon. LETS GET IT ON!!
:mob:

hermhater
03-03-2008, 02:49 PM
Ok, this is BS....First of all, Randy Moss wasn't a free agent last season. He was traded for. The Pats gave up a 4th round pick. If we had done that, we wouldn't have Kolby. His name wasn't even being mentioned as a trade target until the Pats just swooped in and picked him up.

Second, I never said FAs were all bad. They're just not for teams who are trying to rebuild, that's all. Do you really think a volitile personality like Moss' would be a good fit in KC? There's a lot more to Moss than his ability.

Sure hope this rebuild works out like you say it will.

With Herm and Carl in charge I just don't see it happening in the next few years.

But I will still root for OUR Chiefs!!!

:yahoo:

hermhater
03-03-2008, 02:51 PM
We need to set up a Crowd octagon. LETS GET IT ON!!
:mob:

Did you watch UFC 82?

Silva is a bad ***!

royalswin100games
03-03-2008, 02:53 PM
Did you watch UFC 82?

Silva is a bad ***!

That he is. No mercy at all. I think that should be the Chiefs '08 motto.

hermhater
03-03-2008, 02:54 PM
That he is. No mercy at all. I think that should be the Chiefs '08 motto.

You think "Silva is a bad ***!" should be the Chiefs '08 motto?

Huh.

:D

royalswin100games
03-03-2008, 02:55 PM
You think "Silva is a bad ***!" should be the Chiefs '08 motto?

Huh.

:D

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

hermhater
03-03-2008, 02:59 PM
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Don't get me wrong, I like it!

:lol:

DrunkHillbilly
03-03-2008, 04:21 PM
Ok, this is BS....First of all, Randy Moss wasn't a free agent last season. He was traded for. The Pats gave up a 4th round pick. If we had done that, we wouldn't have Kolby. His name wasn't even being mentioned as a trade target until the Pats just swooped in and picked him up.

Second, I never said FAs were all bad. They're just not for teams who are trying to rebuild, that's all. Do you really think a volitile personality like Moss' would be a good fit in KC? There's a lot more to Moss than his ability.
Your right. I misspoke when I said Moss was a FA pick up. However, I would have taken him in a heart beat before Kolby Smith! I think we are in agreeance about building the team, however, I think I believe we need more "productive proven leadership" than Huard and Waters as you suggested in another thread!

Canada
03-03-2008, 05:19 PM
Gonzo?? I think he is a bit of a leader.

royalswin100games
03-03-2008, 05:27 PM
Gonzo?? I think he is a bit of a leader.

No disagreement here.

Canada
03-03-2008, 05:28 PM
No disagreement here.

good :beer:

royalswin100games
03-03-2008, 05:30 PM
good :beer:

You're not gonna get my beer!
:toast2:

Canada
03-03-2008, 05:31 PM
You're not gonna get my beer!
:toast2:

Are you trying to keep beer from me? :beer:

royalswin100games
03-03-2008, 05:32 PM
Are you trying to keep beer from me? :beer:

C'mon now, you have better beer than I do in the great white north.

:bananen_smilies046:

Canada
03-03-2008, 05:34 PM
C'mon now, you have better beer than I do in the great white north.

:bananen_smilies046:

I know, but I am trying to drink all the beer in the world. My belly is like heaven for beers! They all want to go there. :D

DrunkHillbilly
03-03-2008, 05:38 PM
Gonzo?? I think he is a bit of a leader.
I already mentioned him in the other thread. texaschief also brought up Huard and Waters in his long line of productive and proven vets on this team! Ha Ha is what I say to that!

Canada
03-03-2008, 05:39 PM
I already mentioned him in the other thread. texaschief also brought up Huard and Waters in his long line of productive and proven vets on this team! Ha Ha is what I say to that!

Yeah, I saw that one after I posted!! Carry on!! :bananen_smilies046:

chief31
03-03-2008, 07:02 PM
I already mentioned him in the other thread. texaschief also brought up Huard and Waters in his long line of productive and proven vets on this team! Ha Ha is what I say to that!


I'm not sure how many "team leaders" you feel an offense needs, but Gonzo and Waters is a pretty good pair in my opinion. Through in MacIntosh, and that doesn't seem like a group that is too lacking in ledership.

DrunkHillbilly
03-03-2008, 07:14 PM
I'm not sure how many "team leaders" you feel an offense needs, but Gonzo and Waters is a pretty good pair in my opinion. Through in MacIntosh, and that doesn't seem like a group that is too lacking in ledership.
Obviously I agree on Gonzo but Waters and MacIntosh don't qualify in my book. Waters numbers were way down when the HOF's left his side and MacIntosh????

Anyhow, as I have said in other threads, I am speaking of skill position players that have been to the playoffs and proven their productivity in this league! We haven't seemed to show any interest in even speaking to one in the last several years. Not even talking to them!!!!! Shows me they don't really care about winning. The wait till draft day mantality has not been successful for years now. As far as getting us over the hump goes anyway. Like I said before, if someone comes in and decides they don't want any part of what we have to offer, great but atleast put out a few invites to guys to show them what we DO have to offer! Who knows, maybe CP and others know we aren't going to offer much so they don't even bother!

texaschief
03-03-2008, 07:38 PM
Obviously I agree on Gonzo but Waters and MacIntosh don't qualify in my book. Waters numbers were way down when the HOF's left his side and MacIntosh????

Anyhow, as I have said in other threads, I am speaking of skill position players that have been to the playoffs and proven their productivity in this league! We haven't seemed to show any interest in even speaking to one in the last several years. Not even talking to them!!!!! Shows me they don't really care about winning. The wait till draft day mantality has not been successful for years now. As far as getting us over the hump goes anyway. Like I said before, if someone comes in and decides they don't want any part of what we have to offer, great but atleast put out a few invites to guys to show them what we DO have to offer! Who knows, maybe CP and others know we aren't going to offer much so they don't even bother!

Can you show me the difference in his "numbers" from one year to the other? What "numbers" are you talking about? What stats are they keeping on linemen these days other than games played/started? From what i can tell, his "numbers" went up from 2006. He played in 16 games rather than 14.

So, if you can show me a solo statistical decline, i might actually listen to this discussion of how "overrated" Brian Waters is.

chief31
03-03-2008, 07:56 PM
Obviously I agree on Gonzo but Waters and MacIntosh don't qualify in my book. Waters numbers were way down when the HOF's left his side and MacIntosh????

Anyhow, as I have said in other threads, I am speaking of skill position players that have been to the playoffs and proven their productivity in this league! We haven't seemed to show any interest in even speaking to one in the last several years. Not even talking to them!!!!! Shows me they don't really care about winning. The wait till draft day mantality has not been successful for years now. As far as getting us over the hump goes anyway. Like I said before, if someone comes in and decides they don't want any part of what we have to offer, great but atleast put out a few invites to guys to show them what we DO have to offer! Who knows, maybe CP and others know we aren't going to offer much so they don't even bother!

Waters in an offensive lineman. He isn't five offensive linemen, and a fullback.

Offensive linemen have to work as a team, and that team works alot like a chain. Only as strong as the weakest link. Having one solid link amongst three to four weak ones is very little help.

But the Chiefs knew that they only had one solid link, as they tried to run behind him as often as possible. But with weaker links all around, that doesn't really work too well.

Maybe he isn't Will Shields, but he is exactly the kind of team leaership that you are talking about.

As far as the "skill positions", they are vastly overrated. Give me a great offensive line, and I will turn-out pro-bowl "skill position" players.

DrunkHillbilly
03-03-2008, 09:30 PM
Can you show me the difference in his "numbers" from one year to the other? What "numbers" are you talking about? What stats are they keeping on linemen these days other than games played/started? From what i can tell, his "numbers" went up from 2006. He played in 16 games rather than 14.

So, if you can show me a solo statistical decline, i might actually listen to this discussion of how "overrated" Brian Waters is.
Didn't mean numbers per say mr. literal!!!! his "performance" was definetly not as good! Are you going to argue that too?

DrunkHillbilly
03-03-2008, 09:36 PM
Waters in an offensive lineman. He isn't five offensive linemen, and a fullback.

Offensive linemen have to work as a team, and that team works alot like a chain. Only as strong as the weakest link. Having one solid link amongst three to four weak ones is very little help.

But the Chiefs knew that they only had one solid link, as they tried to run behind him as often as possible. But with weaker links all around, that doesn't really work too well.

Maybe he isn't Will Shields, but he is exactly the kind of team leaership that you are talking about.

As far as the "skill positions", they are vastly overrated. Give me a great offensive line, and I will turn-out pro-bowl "skill position" players.
Really? How many pro bowls has your boy Kennison been to? I believe he had a pretty good line in St Louis as well as a few years in KC! He's had exactly 2 seasons out of 12 with 1000 yds! :sign0153:

texaschief
03-03-2008, 10:10 PM
Didn't mean numbers per say mr. literal!!!! his "performance" was definetly not as good! Are you going to argue that too?

yes. How can you possibly say that his performance went down? Because Roaf and Shields left? How does that affect individual performance? He wasn't hurt. He was running the same plays at the same intensity. They just weren't as effective because he didn't have Roaf and Shields around him. But he still played at the same level as he has his entire career.

DrunkHillbilly
03-03-2008, 10:27 PM
yes. How can you possibly say that his performance went down? Because Roaf and Shields left? How does that affect individual performance? He wasn't hurt. He was running the same plays at the same intensity. They just weren't as effective because he didn't have Roaf and Shields around him. But he still played at the same level as he has his entire career.
I just disagree!!!! He's a great guy but I think your proving my point. Those other guys you speak of, they could each hold their own alone. He can not.

chief31
03-04-2008, 12:13 AM
Really? How many pro bowls has your boy Kennison been to? I believe he had a pretty good line in St Louis as well as a few years in KC! He's had exactly 2 seasons out of 12 with 1000 yds! :sign0153:

Actually, of the six seasons that he spent not being a Chief, he had one, his rookie season, with more than 835 recieving yards.

Whereas last season was the first as a Chief (Full season) that he didn't have more than that.

That's five straight seasons below 850(2513 yards), then, as a Chief, five consecutive seasons(4807 yards) above the mark.

That is very nearly a doubled production, using matching, and consecutive five year samples.

Surely you can see that obvious improvement.

In his four years prior to joining the Chiefs, how many Pro-Bowls had Trent Green been to?

How about Priest Holmes' four seasons without Roaf?


I just disagree!!!! He's a great guy but I think your proving my point. Those other guys you speak of, they could each hold their own alone. He can not.

Neither Willie Roaf, nor Will Shields could cover for three to four sub-par offensive linemen on the same unit.

hermhater
03-04-2008, 01:14 AM
What is the problem here?

Do I need to get out the hose and spray you guys down?

It's made of vinyl and it has been sitting out in the sun all day, so you're gonna get burned if you don't behave!

:bananen_smilies046:

chief31
03-04-2008, 02:11 AM
What is the problem here?

Do I need to get out the hose and spray you guys down?

It's made of vinyl and it has been sitting out in the sun all day, so you're gonna get burned if you don't behave!

:bananen_smilies046:
Easy there little fella. We're playing nice. :D See?<<<

hermhater
03-04-2008, 02:14 AM
Easy there little fella. We're playing nice. :D See?<<<

:lol:

What's up man?

chief31
03-04-2008, 02:15 AM
:lol:

What's up man?
Just workin'...Errr somethin'.

hermhater
03-04-2008, 02:17 AM
Just workin'...Errr somethin'.


I posted from work today at 6:48 pm.

First time I have grown a big enough pair to actually visit the site while workin', and it was you, TC, and DH going at it!

:lol:

Figures, eh?

:bananen_smilies046:

chief31
03-04-2008, 02:21 AM
I posted from work today at 6:48 pm.

First time I have grown a big enough pair to actually visit the site while workin', and it was you, TC, and DH going at it!

:lol:

Figures, eh?

:bananen_smilies046:

Those guys bring a pretty good discussion to the table when they get going. It's always a good time debating things with them. :yahoo:

hermhater
03-04-2008, 02:29 AM
Those guys bring a pretty good discussion to the table when they get going. It's always a good time debating things with them. :yahoo:

I highly doubt that any of your guy's passion for the game is in question!

Seriously, reading those arguments gives me a pretty good perspective on a lot of issues.

And somehow you three jerks keep it civil! :biggrin:

Thanks guys!

(Hey by the way is it OK to give rep to anything in this thread, or would that be whoring?)

chief31
03-04-2008, 04:20 AM
I highly doubt that any of your guy's passion for the game is in question!

Seriously, reading those arguments gives me a pretty good perspective on a lot of issues.

And somehow you three jerks keep it civil! :biggrin:

Thanks guys!

(Hey by the way is it OK to give rep to anything in this thread, or would that be whoring?)
Actually, that would be considered "John-ing".:lol:

hermhater
03-04-2008, 04:25 AM
Those guys bring a pretty good discussion to the table when they get going. It's always a good time debating things with them. :yahoo:


Actually, that would be considered "John-ing".:lol:



You got it wrong.

I got a stable of ho's and you are all my *****es!

:yahoo:

DrunkHillbilly
03-04-2008, 08:46 AM
Actually, of the six seasons that he spent not being a Chief, he had one, his rookie season, with more than 835 recieving yards.

Whereas last season was the first as a Chief (Full season) that he didn't have more than that.

That's five straight seasons below 850(2513 yards), then, as a Chief, five consecutive seasons(4807 yards) above the mark.

That is very nearly a doubled production, using matching, and consecutive five year samples.

Surely you can see that obvious improvement.

In his four years prior to joining the Chiefs, how many Pro-Bowls had Trent Green been to?

How about Priest Holmes' four seasons without Roaf?



Neither Willie Roaf, nor Will Shields could cover for three to four sub-par offensive linemen on the same unit.
The mark is 1000 yds for a receiver! Period! They all shoot for it! As to your comment about "show you a good line and you'll produce a pro bowler" goes, in this example, it is not true. In fact, you brought up Green to so there ya go. I get tired of fielding mediocre players at the WR position!!!! For the most part, we have never had a stud receiver! EVER! Bowe? We'll see, but never have we had one or a combination of two or three that have been a threat to do any damage offensively! Obviously I believe it is a crucial position and you don't. I guess we're at that point aagain huh???:D

AkChief49
03-04-2008, 08:54 AM
The mark is 1000 yds for a receiver! Period! They all shoot for it! As to your comment about "show you a good line and you'll produce a pro bowler" goes, in this example, it is not true. In fact, you brought up Green to so there ya go. I get tired of fielding mediocre players at the WR position!!!! For the most part, we have never had a stud receiver! EVER! Bowe? We'll see, but never have we had one or a combination of two or three that have been a threat to do any damage offensively! Obviously I believe it is a crucial position and you don't. I guess we're at that point aagain huh???:D
with the style of offense we've had, coming off of the D.V. era we did not need one. couple of years ago we had 5 receivers with 50+ receptions each. but I do agree we need someone to compliment Bowe..Sweed,Manningham,Jackson,Kelly,and his ex-team mate Doucet are the top 5. who do you like?

DrunkHillbilly
03-04-2008, 08:59 AM
with the style of offense we've had, coming off of the D.V. era we did not need one. couple of years ago we had 5 receivers with 50+ receptions each. but I do agree we need someone to compliment Bowe..Sweed,Manningham,Jackson,Kelly,and his ex-team mate Doucet are the top 5. who do you like?
We needed one or two then as well!!!!

There have been a bunch that were available through free agency this year and last. A BUNCH!

AkChief49
03-04-2008, 09:03 AM
We needed one or two then as well!!!!

There have been a bunch that were available through free agency this year and last. A BUNCH!who fits Herms bill of just coming out of their first contract? sounds like he sticking with the younger ones.

Canada
03-04-2008, 09:14 AM
We needed one or two then as well!!!!

There have been a bunch that were available through free agency this year and last. A BUNCH!

Obviously we didn't as we were one of the league leading offenses. :bananen_smilies046:

DrunkHillbilly
03-04-2008, 12:34 PM
Obviously we didn't as we were one of the league leading offenses. :bananen_smilies046:
Would have been nice to have a legit 1000 yd threat consistantly over those years to possibly put them over the top. Not many teams were afraid of getting burned by Morton, Kennison, Rison ect.....!!!!!!!! Priest and TG carried most of the load in those days. If those are the years your talking about??

Canada
03-04-2008, 12:42 PM
Would have been nice to have a legit 1000 yd threat consistantly over those years to possibly put them over the top. Not many teams were afraid of getting burned by Morton, Kennison, Rison ect.....!!!!!!!! Priest and TG carried most of the load in those days. If those are the years your talking about??

Sure it would be nice to have a superstar at every position. Don't you think our defense coulda used some help, or did you want a "superstar" WR as the expense of the O line, perhaps the running game? I would have loved to have 17 1000yard receivers, but our offense ran just fine without one.

hermhater
03-04-2008, 12:51 PM
Maybe a "superstar" receiver could have given us a few playoff wins.

Then again, who really knows?

DrunkHillbilly
03-04-2008, 12:51 PM
Sure it would be nice to have a superstar at every position. Don't you think our defense coulda used some help, or did you want a "superstar" WR as the expense of the O line, perhaps the running game? I would have loved to have 17 1000yard receivers, but our offense ran just fine without one.
Blah blah blah whatever! Back on task here.....How about all the free agents we have passed on over the last several years on both sides of the ball? The point was we always pass on top named guys for some reason. Why?

Canada
03-04-2008, 12:53 PM
too expensive?

Canada
03-04-2008, 12:55 PM
Maybe a "superstar" receiver could have given us a few playoff wins.

Then again, who really knows?

so could a defense

royalswin100games
03-04-2008, 12:56 PM
Sure it would be nice to have a superstar at every position. Don't you think our defense coulda used some help, or did you want a "superstar" WR as the expense of the O line, perhaps the running game? I would have loved to have 17 1000yard receivers, but our offense ran just fine without one.

It's because Saunders and Vermeil used Priest like they used Faulk. Priest was the second best receiver next to Gonzo. Ah, the days when our O was #1.

:bananen_smilies046:

royalswin100games
03-04-2008, 12:57 PM
so could a defense

D wins titles.

DrunkHillbilly
03-04-2008, 12:58 PM
too expensive?
NOOOOOOOOOOO! JUST TO F'N CHEAP!!!!!!! We're always under the cap! More importantly, I wouldn't even be as mad if we just TALKED to some big names! We NEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVEEEEEEERRRRRRRRR even invite guys to talk to us about playing for the Chiefs!:mob:

hermhater
03-04-2008, 12:59 PM
D wins titles.

This broken record again?

:biggrin:

royalswin100games
03-04-2008, 01:00 PM
D wins titles. D wins titles. D wins titles. D wins titles.

hermhater
03-04-2008, 01:00 PM
NOOOOOOOOOOO! JUST TO F'N CHEAP!!!!!!! We're always under the cap! More importantly, I wouldn't even be as mad if we just TALKED to some big names! We NEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVEEEEEEERRRRRRRRR even invite guys to talk to us about playing for the Chiefs!:mob:

That pisses me off too!

:mob:

DrunkHillbilly
03-04-2008, 01:01 PM
D wins titles. D wins titles. D wins titles. D wins titles.
Offense at least gets you to the playoffs!!!!!! I mean at least 5 wins!!!!!
It's pretty sad when we are just hoping for playoffs now!!!!!!

royalswin100games
03-04-2008, 01:03 PM
Offense at least gets you to the playoffs!!!!!! I mean at least 5 wins!!!!!

I'm on your side. No disagreement here. I think we should've talked to some of these guys. I thought we should've talked to Faneca.

DrunkHillbilly
03-04-2008, 01:11 PM
I'm on your side. No disagreement here. I think we should've talked to some of these guys. I thought we should've talked to Faneca.
I don't really give a damn who we talk to just as long as we talk!!!! They always just keep the fans in the dark and then sign a bunch of tools that noone knows or that are washed up! Priest was the last good signing we have had I think. Nobody else that comes to mind since. Roaf of course but both of those were ages ago and both were suppose to be done! Roaf was like Leonard Davis. Different position but once they were traded, they dominated!

hermhater
03-04-2008, 02:07 PM
DH are you forgetting who our GM and Coach are?

Why the hell would they do something good for the team???

Chiefster
03-04-2008, 02:23 PM
DH are you forgetting who our GM and Coach are?

Why the hell would they do something good for the team???


Eggsactly; does absolutely no good to get worked up about it because neither of those two guys care what fans think.

royalswin100games
03-04-2008, 02:30 PM
Eggsactly; does absolutely no good to get worked up about it because neither of those two guys care what fans think.

You guys are bumming me out.

Chiefster
03-04-2008, 02:33 PM
You guys are bumming me out.

Sorry dude; reality sometimes sucks.

anaeelbackwards
03-04-2008, 02:35 PM
You guys are bumming me out.


Sorry dude; reality sucks.

FYP! :drunkhb:

especially when you have queen carl and the man herm as your top dogs...

BUMMMMER!

hermhater
03-04-2008, 02:37 PM
Sorry dude; reality sometimes sucks.

More often than not, in some cases.

Chiefster
03-04-2008, 02:39 PM
FYP! :drunkhb:

especially when you have queen carl and the man herm as your top dogs...

BUMMMMER!

Exactly what I was referring to


More often than not, in some cases.

Yep!

Canada
03-04-2008, 02:39 PM
You guys all suck!! Herm is gonna pull Carls head outta his *** and Carl is gonna pull Herms out and they are gonna trip over a GREAT draft then re sign Jared and The Chiefs are gonna Kick *** in '08!!

Chiefster
03-04-2008, 02:43 PM
You guys all suck!! Herm is gonna pull Carls head outta his *** and Carl is gonna pull Herms out and they are gonna trip over a GREAT draft then re sign Jared and The Chiefs are gonna Kick *** in '08!!


Aaaahh! The voice of eternal optimism sweeping down from the Great White North to save the day, providing all the much needed balance the Crowd will ever need. :D

Canada
03-04-2008, 02:45 PM
Aaaahh! The voice of eternal optimism sweeping down from the Great White North to save the day, providing all the much needed balance the Crowd will ever need. :D

I don't want you guys to spend all off season whining and crying. If I have to I will just go to every game. :bananen_smilies046:

m0ef0e
03-04-2008, 02:45 PM
You guys all suck!! Herm is gonna pull Carls head outta his *** and Carl is gonna pull Herms out and they are gonna trip over a GREAT draft then re sign Jared and The Chiefs are gonna Kick *** in '08!!


Amen to that! Preach it, my brotha!

hermhater
03-04-2008, 02:48 PM
I don't want you guys to spend all off season whining and crying. If I have to I will just go to every game. :bananen_smilies046:


Amen to that! Preach it, my brotha!

OUTSTANDING!!!!!

royalswin100games
03-04-2008, 02:48 PM
Amen to that! Preach it, my brotha!

YES! YES! KICK A$$! NO MERCY!

:karate:

Chiefster
03-04-2008, 02:49 PM
I don't want you guys to spend all off season whining and crying. If I have to I will just go to every game. :bananen_smilies046:

I support you in that endeavor. :)

Chiefster
03-04-2008, 02:50 PM
Hang on to that optimism guys; yer gonna need it. :p
j/k

Canada
03-04-2008, 02:53 PM
I support you in that endeavor. :)

Financially? :D

hermhater
03-04-2008, 02:56 PM
Hang on to that optimism guys; yer gonna need it. :p
j/k

This is the year the Chiefs are gonna turn it all around!

Herm has to realize by now he doesn't know how to coach, and will let his coordinators do their job!


Financially? :D

I'll chip in a case of Budweiser for ya!

:bananen_smilies046:

Canada
03-04-2008, 02:57 PM
:bananen_smilies046:

Per game? :D

hermhater
03-04-2008, 02:58 PM
Per game? :D

Sure thing!

Bring it on brother!

:bananen_smilies046:

Canada
03-04-2008, 03:03 PM
OK, who wants to buy the food?

m0ef0e
03-04-2008, 03:09 PM
OK, who wants to buy the food?

There's a sandwich in every bottle. :drunkhb: :bananen_smilies046:

Canada
03-04-2008, 03:16 PM
mmmm....wheat barley and hops sandwiches!!

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/03/11.jpg

DrunkHillbilly
03-04-2008, 03:27 PM
Eggsactly; does absolutely no good to get worked up about it because neither of those two guys care what fans think.
If you recall, I am the one wondering and debating with 31 about how in the hell CP still has a job after this many years of poor preformance. Yea, he had a few good years several years ago but after 20 years you would think we could just sniff the big one wouldn't ya?

Chiefster
03-04-2008, 04:55 PM
If you recall, I am the one wondering and debating with 31 about how in the hell CP still has a job after this many years of poor preformance. Yea, he had a few good years several years ago but after 20 years you would think we could just sniff the big one wouldn't ya?

Yup, one would think.

Chiefster
03-04-2008, 04:55 PM
Financially? :D
Nope.


















That is all. :p

chief31
03-04-2008, 10:43 PM
The mark is 1000 yds for a receiver! Period! They all shoot for it! As to your comment about "show you a good line and you'll produce a pro bowler" goes, in this example, it is not true. In fact, you brought up Green to so there ya go. I get tired of fielding mediocre players at the WR position!!!! For the most part, we have never had a stud receiver! EVER! Bowe? We'll see, but never have we had one or a combination of two or three that have been a threat to do any damage offensively! Obviously I believe it is a crucial position and you don't. I guess we're at that point aagain huh???:D

Who woulda thunk it, hunh? Lol.




Blah blah blah whatever! Back on task here.....How about all the free agents we have passed on over the last several years on both sides of the ball? The point was we always pass on top named guys for some reason. Why?

Seems to me that every year we go out and sign some big name that everyone seems to want here, then everyone complains when they aren't playing up to our expectations. Ty Law, Donnie Edwards, Patrick Surtain, Sammie Knight, Kendrell Bell.

But sure, we need to go after the big names because of how well that has been working.

I'm not entirely against you on this, but for this offseason, I haven't seen much that was available, that made much sense for this team.

As far as WRs goes, I'm o.k. with what we have, but wouldn't mind seeing a decent no.2 in here. Although, I would have kept Kennison.

And that 1000 yard mark? I don't care. Period. The guys doubled his production in consecutive five year stints. The idea that it's 1000 yards or nothing isn't making it to the table. Especially when we are talking about a guy who was always going to be the secondary target here, behind Tony Gonzales.

TJ Houshmandzadeh has only had two out of six seasons at, or above, 1000 yards (barely), 1081 and 1143. But I still think that the guy is pretty good. :sign0153:


D wins titles. D wins titles. D wins titles. D wins titles.

Really? How well did the top sixteen NFL defenses do in '07?:D

texaschief
03-04-2008, 10:58 PM
Really? How well did the top sixteen NFL defenses do in '07?:D

uh, all 12 playoff teams were in the top 15 in total defense. Only 8 of those teams had a top 15 offense. The #4 defense in the regular season lost the Super Bowl while the #7 defense won the Super Bowl.

The #1 regular season offense lost in the Super Bowl while the #17 offense WON the Super Bowl.

If you go look at the stats on NFL.com, you'll see A LOT more non-playoff teams on the top 16 offenses than you'll on the top 16 defenses.

Just thought i'd help you out there 31. :D

chief31
03-05-2008, 04:23 AM
uh, all 12 playoff teams were in the top 15 in total defense. Only 8 of those teams had a top 15 offense. The #4 defense in the regular season lost the Super Bowl while the #7 defense won the Super Bowl.

The #1 regular season offense lost in the Super Bowl while the #17 offense WON the Super Bowl.

If you go look at the stats on NFL.com, you'll see A LOT more non-playoff teams on the top 16 offenses than you'll on the top 16 defenses.

Just thought i'd help you out there 31. :D

I must have been confused. I thought we were talking about how defense wins Super Bowls., and I was wondering how many Super Bowls the top sixteen defenses in the NFL in '07 won?

It looked a whole lot like the seventeenth ranked defense won it.

Is seventeen in the upper half of 32, or the lower half? :D

Just finding it funny how the 31st ranked defense won it the preious year, but that was used as an argument for "defense wins championships", and now the seventeenth ranked defense wins, and somehow it is further "proving" that point.

hermhater
03-05-2008, 04:28 AM
I must have been confused. I thought we were talking about how defense wins Super Bowls., and I was wondering how many Super Bowls the top sixteen defenses in the NFL in '07 won?

It looked a whole lot like the seventeenth ranked defense won it.

Is seventeen in the upper half of 32, or the lower half? :D

Just finding it funny how the 31st ranked defense won it the preious year, but that was used as an argument for "defense wins championships", and now the seventeenth ranked defense wins, and somehow it is further "proving" that point.

There is no flaw in that logic.

You must submit.

:bananen_smilies046:

DrunkHillbilly
03-05-2008, 09:09 AM
Who woulda thunk it, hunh? Lol.





Seems to me that every year we go out and sign some big name that everyone seems to want here, then everyone complains when they aren't playing up to our expectations. Ty Law, Donnie Edwards, Patrick Surtain, Sammie Knight, Kendrell Bell.

But sure, we need to go after the big names because of how well that has been working.

I'm not entirely against you on this, but for this offseason, I haven't seen much that was available, that made much sense for this team.

As far as WRs goes, I'm o.k. with what we have, but wouldn't mind seeing a decent no.2 in here. Although, I would have kept Kennison.

And that 1000 yard mark? I don't care. Period. The guys doubled his production in consecutive five year stints. The idea that it's 1000 yards or nothing isn't making it to the table. Especially when we are talking about a guy who was always going to be the secondary target here, behind Tony Gonzales.

TJ Houshmandzadeh has only had two out of six seasons at, or above, 1000 yards (barely), 1081 and 1143. But I still think that the guy is pretty good. :sign0153:



Really? How well did the top sixteen NFL defenses do in '07?:D
That is the problem right there! When your TE is leading your team in receptions AND yds, it shows you have no WR's! Get one really really good WR and take some pressure off TG. Furthermore, make teams respect your downfield threat! Our downfield threat does not exist! I'm not ok with what we have and I was never ok with Bell or Knight!!!! I did like the Edwards signing. The other two eh, I was whatever. Not over enthuse to say the least. I want guys that are still able to play. Two guys that were out there this year were Stallworth at WR and Lito Shephard is still out there. Lito may be out because I think the Eagles are looking for a stud WR. Weird! As far as Housh goes, be realistic! Look who's on the other side!! How about the ridiculous Napoleon Harris signing? He is going to be on the bench now!!! I say ridiculous because we've already replaced him one year later!!!!

Canada
03-05-2008, 09:21 AM
That is the problem right there! When your TE is leading your team in receptions AND yds, it shows you have no WR's! Get one really really good WR and take some pressure off TG. Furthermore, make teams respect your downfield threat! Our downfield threat does not exist! I'm not ok with what we have and I was never ok with Bell or Knight!!!! I did like the Edwards signing. The other two eh, I was whatever. Not over enthuse to say the least. I want guys that are still able to play. Two guys that were out there this year were Stallworth at WR and Lito Shephard is still out there. Lito may be out because I think the Eagles are looking for a stud WR. Weird! As far as Housh goes, be realistic! Look who's on the other side!! How about the ridiculous Napoleon Harris signing? He is going to be on the bench now!!! I say ridiculous because we've already replaced him one year later!!!!

I don't have a problem with TG being out #1 guy. Why wouldn't you want that? Bowe can be #2 and we would still have a pretty good passing attack (provided the o line get some help)

Has Harris been replaced or did you not just assume that he has been replaced cause we signed Williams?

*I would be OK with another receiver coming in as long as he is a fit for the team.

DrunkHillbilly
03-05-2008, 11:32 AM
I don't have a problem with TG being out #1 guy. Why wouldn't you want that? Bowe can be #2 and we would still have a pretty good passing attack (provided the o line get some help)

Has Harris been replaced or did you not just assume that he has been replaced cause we signed Williams?

*I would be OK with another receiver coming in as long as he is a fit for the team.
Im assuming Williams will start over Harris. Bet a beer on it?

I'm not ok with TG being our #1 because it shows other teams our inability to throw the ball down field. He is the best in the league at 10-15 yds over the middle but at some point we have to go deep! So, when you only have 1 receiver ( Bowe ) teams are able to key on him therefore taking that threat away. I just don't think we are balanced enough at a receiver position. Obviously O line has some to do with throwing the ball down field but if you don't have anyone to throw it to it doesn't matter what kind of a line you have.

Canada
03-05-2008, 11:35 AM
Im assuming Williams will start over Harris. Bet a beer on it?

I'm not ok with TG being our #1 because it shows other teams our inability to throw the ball down field. He is the best in the league at 10-15 yds over the middle but at some point we have to go deep! So, when you only have 1 receiver ( Bowe ) teams are able to key on him therefore taking that threat away. I just don't think we are balanced enough at a receiver position. Obviously O line has some to do with throwing the ball down field but if you don't have anyone to throw it to it doesn't matter what kind of a line you have.

I am never one to turn down a chance at a free beer!! :)

DrunkHillbilly
03-05-2008, 11:39 AM
I am never one to turn down a chance at a free beer!! :)
I take it you don't think Williams will start? Barring an injury or something to that affect of course.

Canada
03-05-2008, 12:17 PM
I take it you don't think Williams will start? Barring an injury or something to that affect of course.

I dunno, I just want a chance at a free beer!! :D

DrunkHillbilly
03-05-2008, 12:40 PM
I dunno, I just want a chance at a free beer!! :D
But will you feel equally as bad if you have to give one up? LOL!:D

Canada
03-05-2008, 01:03 PM
But will you feel equally as bad if you have to give one up? LOL!:D

No, cause I will have to go buy a whole case to give you one and then I will be left with 27!! :D

stlchief
03-05-2008, 01:32 PM
Yeah - bringing TO in here a few yrs back would have been awful. Look how he tore Dallas apart. And besides, what could he have done for the Chiefs?

The best we could of hoped for is he would have been our #1 receiver, a true deep threat that would demand the double coverage currently reserved for TG, which would have opened up TG even more.

Poor Dallas.

Or Randy Moss? He DESTROYED NE. Thank god he wasn't in KC running routes and pulling attention away from TG & D-Bo.

Stupid New England.

Those guys are "cancers". Look how much better we turned out to be without them...

hermhater
03-05-2008, 01:38 PM
Canada lost a beer! :lol:

You're right stlchief!

Those guys killed their teams!

:lol:

texaschief
03-05-2008, 03:42 PM
Yeah - bringing TO in here a few yrs back would have been awful. Look how he tore Dallas apart. And besides, what could he have done for the Chiefs?

The best we could of hoped for is he would have been our #1 receiver, a true deep threat that would demand the double coverage currently reserved for TG, which would have opened up TG even more.

Poor Dallas.

Or Randy Moss? He DESTROYED NE. Thank god he wasn't in KC running routes and pulling attention away from TG & D-Bo.

Stupid New England.

Those guys are "cancers". Look how much better we turned out to be without them...

T.O. doesn't do anything in Dallas because he's getting the ball and they're winning. Did you forget what he did to San Francisco and Phili? Yeah, give me a WR who calls our starting QB a "******"...that's the guy i want on our team!!

How many times did Randy Moss walk off the field before the Oakland games were over? Even if it were only once, that's one time too many. If he was such a great locker room asset, why was he traded for the MLB we just sent to the bench?

Canada
03-05-2008, 07:47 PM
Canada lost a beer! :lol:

You're right stlchief!

Those guys killed their teams!

:lol:
How did I lose a beer? Last I checked the season dosen't start until Sept and no one besides DH has said that Harris isn't starting. But you go with what he tells you. :sign0098:

texaschief
03-05-2008, 09:37 PM
I must have been confused. I thought we were talking about how defense wins Super Bowls., and I was wondering how many Super Bowls the top sixteen defenses in the NFL in '07 won?

It looked a whole lot like the seventeenth ranked defense won it.

Is seventeen in the upper half of 32, or the lower half? :D

Just finding it funny how the 31st ranked defense won it the preious year, but that was used as an argument for "defense wins championships", and now the seventeenth ranked defense wins, and somehow it is further "proving" that point.

What are you basing these rankings off of? Where do you get 17 from?

During the regular season in 2006, the Colts were ranked 21st while the Bears were #5. During the post season, the Colts had the #1 ranked defense while the Bears were #10.

This season, again, the Giants were ranked #7 during the regular season. The Patriots were ranked #4. During the post season, the Giants were #4 while the Patriots were #7.

So, i guess the answer to your question is 1.

But I'll humor you:
Super Bowl Champs the past decade
Regular season ranking/post season ranking
2007-Giants; regular #7, post #4
2006-Colts; regular #21, post #1
2005-Steelers; regular #4, post #8
2004-Patriots; regular #9, post #5
2003-Patriots; regular #7, post #4
2002-Buccaneers; regular #1, post #1
2001-Patriots; regular #24, post #6
2000-Ravens; regular #2, post #1
1999-Rams; regular #6, post #9
1998-Broncos; regular #10, post #4

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a theme here. With the exception of the 2001 Patriot team and the 2006 Colt team which had the #1 post season defense, seems like having a top 10 regular season defense is a requirement for a Super Bowl Champion.

But hey, they're only numbers.

Chiefster
03-05-2008, 09:42 PM
T.O. doesn't do anything in Dallas because he's getting the ball and they're winning. Did you forget what he did to San Francisco and Phili? Yeah, give me a WR who calls our starting QB a "******"...that's the guy i want on our team!!

How many times did Randy Moss walk off the field before the Oakland games were over? Even if it were only once, that's one time too many. If he was such a great locker room asset, why was he traded for the MLB we just sent to the bench?

Agreed; I am not a TO or a Randy Moss fan.

anaeelbackwards
03-05-2008, 09:56 PM
im fine with d-bo..... it would be nice to see someone compliment him though as opposed to ol'man kennison.

but im in agreement randy moss and t.o would just be cancers to the team.

royalswin100games
03-05-2008, 09:59 PM
im fine with d-bo..... it would be nice to see someone compliment him though as opposed to ol'man kennison.

but im in agreement randy moss and t.o would just be cancers to the team.

Maybe Webb will step up and be a good #2.

DrunkHillbilly
03-05-2008, 11:34 PM
Maybe Webb will step up and be a good #2.
Now that's funny!!!!

royalswin100games
03-05-2008, 11:37 PM
Now that's funny!!!!

The optimist in my head strikes again.

Coach
03-06-2008, 12:16 AM
Maybe Webb will step up and be a good #2.

Maybe a bolt of lightning will shoot out of my arse. Webb is a pile of #2. j/k. It would be nice to see someone step up and be a good #2 WR. I don't think they are currently on the roster though.

royalswin100games
03-06-2008, 12:27 AM
Maybe a bolt of lightning will shoot out of my arse. Webb is a pile of #2. j/k. It would be nice to see someone step up and be a good #2 WR. I don't think they are currently on the roster though.

We could grab Eddie Royal out of VT or Andre Caldwell out of Florida in the third round or maybe later. There seem to be quite a few receivers available in the draft. Hopefully, we address the OL and DB positions first.

hermhater
03-06-2008, 01:37 AM
I don't have a problem with TG being out #1 guy. Why wouldn't you want that? Bowe can be #2 and we would still have a pretty good passing attack (provided the o line get some help)

Has Harris been replaced or did you not just assume that he has been replaced cause we signed Williams?

*I would be OK with another receiver coming in as long as he is a fit for the team.


Im assuming Williams will start over Harris. Bet a beer on it?

I'm not ok with TG being our #1 because it shows other teams our inability to throw the ball down field. He is the best in the league at 10-15 yds over the middle but at some point we have to go deep! So, when you only have 1 receiver ( Bowe ) teams are able to key on him therefore taking that threat away. I just don't think we are balanced enough at a receiver position. Obviously O line has some to do with throwing the ball down field but if you don't have anyone to throw it to it doesn't matter what kind of a line you have.


I am never one to turn down a chance at a free beer!! :)


I take it you don't think Williams will start? Barring an injury or something to that affect of course.


I dunno, I just want a chance at a free beer!! :D


But will you feel equally as bad if you have to give one up? LOL!:D


No, cause I will have to go buy a whole case to give you one and then I will be left with 27!! :D


Canada lost a beer! :lol:

You're right stlchief!

Those guys killed their teams!

:lol:


How did I lose a beer? Last I checked the season dosen't start until Sept and no one besides DH has said that Harris isn't starting. But you go with what he tells you. :sign0098:

It was reported that Williams would be the starter in the KC Star. You don't pay someone that kind of money and then not start them.

:sign0104:

AkChief49
03-06-2008, 01:42 AM
It was reported that Williams would be the starter in the KC Star. You don't pay someone that kind of money and then not start them.

:sign0104:Harris led the team in tackles....so bench him?:sign0153:

hermhater
03-06-2008, 01:56 AM
Harris led the team in tackles....so bench him?:sign0153:

Drummond sucks... so play him!


This is Hermie world you are living in now! :sign0104:

AkChief49
03-06-2008, 02:09 AM
Drummond sucks... so play him!


Drummond sucks......'nuff said:D

chief31
03-06-2008, 02:11 AM
What are you basing these rankings off of? Where do you get 17 from?

During the regular season in 2006, the Colts were ranked 21st while the Bears were #5. During the post season, the Colts had the #1 ranked defense while the Bears were #10.

This season, again, the Giants were ranked #7 during the regular season. The Patriots were ranked #4. During the post season, the Giants were #4 while the Patriots were #7.

So, i guess the answer to your question is 1.

But I'll humor you:
Super Bowl Champs the past decade
Regular season ranking/post season ranking
2007-Giants; regular #7, post #4
2006-Colts; regular #21, post #1
2005-Steelers; regular #4, post #8
2004-Patriots; regular #9, post #5
2003-Patriots; regular #7, post #4
2002-Buccaneers; regular #1, post #1
2001-Patriots; regular #24, post #6
2000-Ravens; regular #2, post #1
1999-Rams; regular #6, post #9
1998-Broncos; regular #10, post #4

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a theme here. With the exception of the 2001 Patriot team and the 2006 Colt team which had the #1 post season defense, seems like having a top 10 regular season defense is a requirement for a Super Bowl Champion.

But hey, they're only numbers.

I guess you caught me on the Colts. I was going from memory, and they were 32nd against the run. But they allowed the 23rd highest number of points (regular season).

While the '07 Giants were 17th in scoring allowed.

You are just cherry-pickin' the numbers that support the theory. While I am pretty much doing the same from the opposite angle. Some teams win it with a top-flight defense, some don't. Some win it with a top-flight offense, some don't.

Showing me that the Giants were "#4" in postseason defense is far from amazing. That's fourth, out of twelve. Barely in the top third.

Only once in the last ten seasons, has the best defense won it, three times for a top-five defense, and, well, having a top-ten defense is really just having a good defense, not so much a great defense.

While you want to have a great defense, and a great offense, neither is detrimental to winning a Super Bowl.

Which is obvious by the point differential of the Giants this season. (21.9 allowed, 23.3 scored, +1.4 points per game.)

The Giants were very average on both sides of the ball, and won a Super Bowl. While the Patriots were dominant on both sides, and lost a Super Bowl.

Defense does not win championships. Champions win championships.

hermhater
03-06-2008, 02:17 AM
Defense does not win championships. Champions win championships.

And that about sums it up!

Thanks guy, that was a very sobering and intellectually equanimous post.

Rep.

DrunkHillbilly
03-06-2008, 10:44 AM
It was reported that Williams would be the starter in the KC Star. You don't pay someone that kind of money and then not start them.

:sign0104:
Now there's some great research!!!!! I did however call it first!!! Maybe I'll try one of Canada's finer beers. Maybe something dark? Hmmmmm, any suggestions Canada?

anaeelbackwards
03-06-2008, 01:27 PM
Now there's some great research!!!!! I did however call it first!!! Maybe I'll try one of Canada's finer beers. Maybe something dark? Hmmmmm, any suggestions Canada?

i remember when we hit up toronto back in the summer of 05' for our 10 city road trip, we had some really good smooth beer called molson dry i think that was what it was called, canada you might help me out on the name, it was in a pretty blue cooler we had and it was migh-ty nice brew.

i also remember being in the bar and having a little too much of this one beer kokane...... uh yeah..:drunkhb: :welcome:

hermhater
03-06-2008, 01:31 PM
Now there's some great research!!!!! I did however call it first!!! Maybe I'll try one of Canada's finer beers. Maybe something dark? Hmmmmm, any suggestions Canada?

Just be careful and make sure he gives you a sealed beer!

:lol:


i remember when we hit up toronto back in the summer of 05' for our 10 city road trip, we had some really good smooth beer called molson dry i think that was what it was called, canada you might help me out on the name, it was in a pretty blue cooler we had and it was migh-ty nice brew.

i also remember being in the bar and having a little too much of this one beer kokane...... uh yeah..:drunkhb: :welcome:

mmmmm... Beer...

anaeelbackwards
03-06-2008, 01:36 PM
mmmmm... Beer...


careful, your making me thirsty and i still have 2 classes to go to! :toast2:

hermhater
03-06-2008, 01:37 PM
careful, your making me thirsty and i still have 2 classes to go to! :toast2:

Take a beer tasting class!

:bananen_smilies046:

Problem solved!

anaeelbackwards
03-06-2008, 01:41 PM
Take a beer tasting class!

:bananen_smilies046:

Problem solved!




if only there was such a class my friend.

id pass the class with flying colors.

if only, if only my friend........

hermhater
03-06-2008, 01:45 PM
if only there was such a class my friend.

id pass the class with flying colors.

if only, if only my friend........

Here ya go!

Colby college rocks!

http://www.hqeducation.com/news/education-news/college-supports-wine-and-beer-tasting.php

:bananen_smilies046:

anaeelbackwards
03-06-2008, 01:50 PM
lol...... colby college.......where the hell is that college?

MAP QUEST ANYONE? :lol: :bananen_smilies046:


imagine purposely failing that class and taking it every semester.....

DrunkHillbilly
03-06-2008, 01:58 PM
i remember when we hit up toronto back in the summer of 05' for our 10 city road trip, we had some really good smooth beer called molson dry i think that was what it was called, canada you might help me out on the name, it was in a pretty blue cooler we had and it was migh-ty nice brew.

i also remember being in the bar and having a little too much of this one beer kokane...... uh yeah..:drunkhb: :welcome:
I carry Molson in a few of my bars here. I need an obscure beer, one that only Canadiens would know of. I need to sample some of Canada's finest! Seeled of course!!!:11:

rbedgood
03-06-2008, 02:03 PM
Take a beer tasting class!

:bananen_smilies046:

Problem solved!

Hmmm...my college Chemistry class was the "Art of Winemaking"...not quite beer, but lab ROCKED!!!

mxpxHERO
03-06-2008, 02:38 PM
Hmmm...my college Chemistry class was the "Art of Winemaking"...not quite beer, but lab ROCKED!!!

wow what college did you go to? anaeelbackwards' dad makes wine and we get to taste-test all the time!

if only i knew how to make beer, my life would be so much better.

hermhater
03-06-2008, 02:42 PM
wow what college did you go to? anaeelbackwards' dad makes wine and we get to taste-test all the time!

if only i knew how to make beer, my life would be so much better.



How to Brew Beer in a Coffee Pot
http://www.allaboutbeer.com/images/235coffee.jpg Brewery tours are a golden opportunity for brewers to educate visitors about the art of brewing. But any brewery employee who has been assigned tour guide duty has seen the confusion on people's faces when you describe the brewing process.


To the visitor, brewing can sound like a return to high school chemistry-with some alchemy thrown in.
The process of brewing coffee, I discovered, was a good way to relate the brewing process to people who do not understand zymurgy, the technical term for making beer. This became more than a useful analogy: with familiar kitchen equipment, you can repeat the steps of the process that goes on in breweries large and small-and make a very small batch of beer.
For this mini-homebrew, you'll need the following kitchen equipment:


An electric drip coffee maker with a water-heating compartment and a hot plate (Mine is a West Bend Quick Drip, and all the measurements here are based on that machine.)


A wooden rolling pin (marble is too heavy)
One coffee filter
A saucepan, larger than 2 quarts
2 1-quart canning jars with lids
2 6-inch squares of cheesecloth
Two rubber bands
1/2 gallon filtered-not distilled-water


Brewing ingredients, from a homebrew supply store: 1 1/4 cups malted barley. You can use all "base malt," such as 2-row or pilsner. Base malt provides the sugar content for fermentation. Or use 1 cup of base malt and 1/4 cup specialty malt(s), such as crystal or chocolate malt, which will provide added color and flavor.


5 to 7 hop pellets, which are the cones of the hop plant compressed into little nuggets. Hops add bitterness to the flavor of beer, and help preserve it.


The variety is your choice.


1/2 packet of champagne yeast (or you can even use baker's yeast)


Before you begin: cleanliness is a huge concern with brewers, because any unwanted microorganisms or residual chemicals can taint the beer. Make sure everything you are using is as close to sanitary as possible. Use a dishwasher if you have one. Set the drying cycle to heat dry with no rinsing agent.
In brewing-whether coffee or beer-parts of a plant (coffee beans or grains of barley) are steeped in hot water to extract soluble material. To make this extraction more efficient, you grind the coffee beans, or you mill the barley grains.


Measure 1 1/4 cups of malted barley. Using the rolling pin, gently apply just enough pressure to the grains to crack them. You do not want to make flour.


Place the cracked grains into the coffee pot. Place 2 cups of filtered water into the coffee machine and turn it on. The temperatures of the water-heating chamber and hot plate-170 degrees F and 150 degrees F, respectively-are perfect for brewing! Let the coffee maker do its thing; it will keep the water/grain mix at a constant temperature for about an hour before it shuts off.


This is called "mashing-in." Enzyme activity in the grain breaks down starches and complex sugars into simple, fermentable sugars.


Strain the liquid through the coffee filter, and place the filter full of grain into the filter basket. Pour the strained liquid back into the water-heating chamber.


Add 1 cup of water to the strained liquid in the chamber and turn the machine back on. After the liquid flows into the coffee pot, turn off the machine and pour the liquid back into heating chamber. Repeat five times, adding another cup of water each time. Keep a close eye to make sure it does not overflow.
This is called "lautering." Lautering is the process of washing hot water over the grain to extract the simple and complex sugars. The higher temperature stops the enzymes from breaking down the grain any further.


Now you have a sugar-rich liquid called "wort" (pronounced "wert"), or sweet liquor. Place the wort into the saucepan and get it to a rolling boil. After 20 minutes of boiling, add 5 to 7 pellets of hops, boil for an additional 30 minutes, then turn off the burner.
Stir until you have a whirlpool. This will pull leftover sediment into the center of the pot. Carefully pour the wort into the canning jar, pouring down the side of the jar without splashing. Splashing hot wort would allow unwanted air-borne organisms to get established.


Next, you need to bring the temperature of the wort down to a level where yeast-the organisms you want in your wort-will thrive. The brewery uses a wort chiller or heat exchanger; you just place the jar into a sink filled with cold water.


Let it cool until the liquid reaches between 60 and 70 degrees F. Screw the top on the jar and shake vigorously; this aerates the wort. Take the top off the jar and add yeast.


The jar is now your fermentation tank. Place a piece of cheesecloth over the top of the jar and secure it with a rubber band; the cheesecloth will keep stuff from falling in your wort, and the carbon dioxide produced by fermentation should keep out other contaminants.
Place the jar in a cool, dark place. The sweet liquor will become beer in five to seven days. Wasn't that easy?
--Bill Drew

http://www.allaboutbeer.com/features/235coffee.html
Another problem solved!

I am on a roll!

:bananen_smilies046:

mxpxHERO
03-06-2008, 02:44 PM
bro what would we do without you?!?

hermhater
03-06-2008, 02:45 PM
bro what would we do without you?!?

You wouldn't be brewing beer in a coffee pot, that's for sure!

:bananen_smilies046:

mxpxHERO
03-06-2008, 02:49 PM
You wouldn't be brewing beer in a coffee pot, that's for sure!

:bananen_smilies046:

but twould be so much simpler and easier to wake up to in the morning, wouldn't you agree?:toast2:

"the best part of waking up, is good ol' beer in your cup!"

hermhater
03-06-2008, 02:50 PM
but twould be so much simpler and easier to wake up to in the morning, wouldn't you agree?:toast2:

"the best part of waking up, is good ol' beer in your cup!"

Word!

:bananen_smilies046:

mxpxHERO
03-06-2008, 02:52 PM
Word!

:bananen_smilies046:

straight up yo!

hermhater your straight up OG.

hermhater
03-06-2008, 02:53 PM
straight up yo!

hermhater your straight up OG.

See that guys?

I'm an Offensive Guard!

Woohoo!

:lol: :bananen_smilies046: :D

mxpxHERO
03-06-2008, 02:59 PM
See that guys?

I'm an Offensive Guard!

Woohoo!

:lol: :bananen_smilies046: :D


if thats what you want to be called.... :lol: :sign0104:

hermhater
03-06-2008, 03:01 PM
if thats what you want to be called.... :lol: :sign0104:

5'8" and 180 lbs!

Let's run the ball to my side of the line Coach!

:lol:

And with that I am off to work!

Nice chattin' with y'all!

Be safe!

:bananen_smilies046:

rbedgood
03-06-2008, 05:24 PM
5'8"...someone's exaggerating!!!

texaschief
03-06-2008, 06:12 PM
I guess you caught me on the Colts. I was going from memory, and they were 32nd against the run. But they allowed the 23rd highest number of points (regular season).

While the '07 Giants were 17th in scoring allowed.

You are just cherry-pickin' the numbers that support the theory. While I am pretty much doing the same from the opposite angle. Some teams win it with a top-flight defense, some don't. Some win it with a top-flight offense, some don't.

Showing me that the Giants were "#4" in postseason defense is far from amazing. That's fourth, out of twelve. Barely in the top third.

Only once in the last ten seasons, has the best defense won it, three times for a top-five defense, and, well, having a top-ten defense is really just having a good defense, not so much a great defense.

While you want to have a great defense, and a great offense, neither is detrimental to winning a Super Bowl.

Which is obvious by the point differential of the Giants this season. (21.9 allowed, 23.3 scored, +1.4 points per game.)

The Giants were very average on both sides of the ball, and won a Super Bowl. While the Patriots were dominant on both sides, and lost a Super Bowl.

Defense does not win championships. Champions win championships.

How am i "cherry picking?" I'm not the one jumping around from rushing defense, to pass defense, to points allowed to pt. differential, to scoring.

The stats i showed were ONE defensive category. "TOTAL DEFENSE." I posted the same category from 98 to 07. I'm comparing apples to apples. Not apples to every other fruit imaginable.

hermhater
03-07-2008, 04:30 AM
5'8" and 180 lbs!

Let's run the ball to my side of the line Coach!

:lol:

And with that I am off to work!

Nice chattin' with y'all!

Be safe!

:bananen_smilies046:


5'8"...someone's exaggerating!!!


How am i "cherry picking?" I'm not the one jumping around from rushing defense, to pass defense, to points allowed to pt. differential, to scoring.

The stats i showed were ONE defensive category. "TOTAL DEFENSE." I posted the same category from 98 to 07. I'm comparing apples to apples. Not apples to every other fruit imaginable.

See that up above your reply to chief31?

Yeah, that crap.

That is what this thread has become, so quit arguing with chief31.

He don't like ur kind much anywhos!


:bananen_smilies046: :lol:

hermhater
03-07-2008, 04:31 AM
How am i "cherry picking?" I'm not the one jumping around from rushing defense, to pass defense, to points allowed to pt. differential, to scoring.

The stats i showed were ONE defensive category. "TOTAL DEFENSE." I posted the same category from 98 to 07. I'm comparing apples to apples. Not apples to every other fruit imaginable.

I like kiwis.

They are tasty.

hermhater
03-07-2008, 04:32 AM
See Canada?

One post per minute.

chief31
03-07-2008, 04:37 AM
How am i "cherry picking?" I'm not the one jumping around from rushing defense, to pass defense, to points allowed to pt. differential, to scoring.

The stats i showed were ONE defensive category. "TOTAL DEFENSE." I posted the same category from 98 to 07. I'm comparing apples to apples. Not apples to every other fruit imaginable.


Well, since I started the conversation about the Giants being 17th, going off of scoring defense, (Apples) and you decided to switch it to defensive yardage (Oranges) I would call that cherry picking. :D

How do you like them apples? :lol: (That statement needed to be made.)

But it is irrelevant to the basis of the discussion. The fact remains that building a top-five defense doesn't really get you much. Certainly not enough to warrant the "defense wins championships" statement.

hermhater
03-07-2008, 04:50 AM
How do you like them apples? :lol: (That statement needed to be made.)


Now that's just funny.

:lol:

Canada
03-07-2008, 08:30 AM
5'8"...someone's standing on a chair!!!

FYP!! :D

texaschief
03-07-2008, 04:03 PM
I must have been confused. I thought we were talking about how defense wins Super Bowls., and I was wondering how many Super Bowls the top sixteen defenses in the NFL in '07 won?

It looked a whole lot like the seventeenth ranked defense won it.

Is seventeen in the upper half of 32, or the lower half? :D

Just finding it funny how the 31st ranked defense won it the preious year, but that was used as an argument for "defense wins championships", and now the seventeenth ranked defense wins, and somehow it is further "proving" that point.


Well, since I started the conversation about the Giants being 17th, going off of scoring defense, (Apples) and you decided to switch it to defensive yardage (Oranges) I would call that cherry picking. :D

How do you like them apples? :lol: (That statement needed to be made.)

But it is irrelevant to the basis of the discussion. The fact remains that building a top-five defense doesn't really get you much. Certainly not enough to warrant the "defense wins championships" statement.

I still wasn't "cherry picking." You didn't specify what defensive category you were referring to. You put out a vague generalization about the Giants being ranked 17th on defense. I figured you were talking about "Total defense" because that's what the league looks at when ranking the teams' defenses.

Scoring defense is misleading. It doesn't account for turnovers deep in their own territory or pick 6's or specail team scoring or any of that crap. It's just "points scored against the team", not necessarily against the defense.

hermhater
03-07-2008, 04:06 PM
FYP!! :D

You're just jealous that I can fit in a normal sized car, and don't have to drive around in an ambulance with lights flashing and sirens blaring to get attention!

:bananen_smilies046:


I still wasn't "cherry picking." You didn't specify what defensive category you were referring to. You put out a vague generalization about the Giants being ranked 17th on defense. I figured you were talking about "Total defense" because that's what the league looks at when ranking the teams' defenses.

Scoring defense is misleading. It doesn't account for turnovers deep in their own territory or pick 6's or specail team scoring or any of that crap. It's just "points scored against the team", not necessarily against the defense.

I can't stand the Giants.

texaschief
03-07-2008, 04:08 PM
You're just jealous that I can fit in a normal sized car, and don't have to drive around in an ambulance with lights flashing and sirens blaring to get attention!

:bananen_smilies046:



I can't stand the Giants.

i can't stand the Patriots. i actually hate the pats more than any team not named the Broncos.

hermhater
03-07-2008, 04:12 PM
i can't stand the Patriots. i actually hate the pats more than any team not named the Broncos.

Why does everyone hate the Pats?

texaschief
03-07-2008, 04:14 PM
Why does everyone hate the Pats?

My hate stems from RedSox nation. I hate everything those people love. It really had nothing to do spygate.

hermhater
03-07-2008, 04:16 PM
My hate stems from RedSox nation. I hate everything those people love. It really had nothing to do spygate.

I like the Pats.

I DON'T like that Boston is winning everything all the time, but if it was here in KC I would be proud of my home teams!

:bananen_smilies046:

texaschief
03-07-2008, 04:17 PM
I like the Pats.

I DON'T like that Boston is winning everything all the time, but if it was here in KC I would be proud of my home teams!

:bananen_smilies046:

My Spurs will ***** slap Boston in the Finals. :yahoo:

hermhater
03-07-2008, 04:25 PM
My Spurs will ***** slap Boston in the Finals. :yahoo:

If we're gonna turn a Hardcore Chiefs Discussion into some crap about basketball, why don't you just go and post in the Locker Room?

As a matter of fact, I can't even remember you ever posting in anything other than Hardcore Chiefs Discussions.

You got a problem with those other forums?:lol:

texaschief
03-07-2008, 04:32 PM
If we're gonna turn a Hardcore Chiefs Discussion into some crap about basketball, why don't you just go and post in the Locker Room?

As a matter of fact, I can't even remember you ever posting in anything other than Hardcore Chiefs Discussions.

You got a problem with those other forums?:lol:

I've posted a few. the politcal one, i started one about Cloverfield, your crap about me bombing some place, school shootings....they say memory is the first to go.

texaschief
03-07-2008, 04:34 PM
at least i'm not a serial "hijacker." you and canada run off on all kinds of bs in every single one of these threads.

you my friend, are not allowed to talk about posting off topic posts.

hermhater
03-07-2008, 04:42 PM
I've posted a few. the politcal one, i started one about Cloverfield, your crap about me bombing some place, school shootings....they say memory is the first to go.

I had a memory?

:bananen_smilies046:


at least i'm not a serial "hijacker." you and canada run off on all kinds of bs in every single one of these threads.

you my friend, are not allowed to talk about posting off topic posts.

My bad, I'll stop then!

:sign0104:

chief31
03-08-2008, 06:13 AM
I still wasn't "cherry picking." You didn't specify what defensive category you were referring to. You put out a vague generalization about the Giants being ranked 17th on defense. I figured you were talking about "Total defense" because that's what the league looks at when ranking the teams' defenses.

Scoring defense is misleading. It doesn't account for turnovers deep in their own territory or pick 6's or specail team scoring or any of that crap. It's just "points scored against the team", not necessarily against the defense.

Defensive yards allowed is also rather mis-leading. It doesn't account for teams that get stout, or weak in the red-zone.

Either way, the Giants were in no way a defensive standout.

Canada
03-08-2008, 07:46 AM
at least i'm not a serial "hijacker." you and canada run off on all kinds of bs in every single one of these threads.

you my friend, are not allowed to talk about posting off topic posts.

WTF did I do?

royalswin100games
03-08-2008, 01:48 PM
WTF did I do?

Yeah, geez. Is this supposed to be fun? Aren't we all Chiefs fans here?

:toast2:

hermhater
03-08-2008, 02:56 PM
WTF did I do?

You drank beer.

:sign0098:


Yeah, geez. Is this supposed to be fun? Aren't we all Chiefs fans here?

:toast2:

Yes we are all Chiefs fans!

God bless us, everyone!

:bananen_smilies046: