PDA

View Full Version : Carl Vs. L.j. Is Next Battle Royale



Chiefster
06-06-2007, 01:16 AM
I have to admit :fatlock: had me laughing on this one. :D

CARL VS. L.J. IS NEXT BATTLE ROYALE
With Jared Allen eating sushi and promising to lead a wilí-out-free social life, and Trent Green packing his footballs and heading to a South Florida home, thereís only one compelling story line left in the latest episode of ďThe Last King of Mediocrity.Ē

Carl Peterson vs. Larry Johnson.

Yes, the main event: King Carl vs. L.J. for all the money in Clark Huntís piggybank. This should be far better than De la Hoya-Mayweather, and if the executives running HBO were smart, theyíd do a 24/7 documentary on this historic battle rather than taping Kansas Cityís training camp.

This is a showdown that has been brewing ever since King Carl hoodwinked Johnson and his agent into signing that ridiculous, Master P-approved rookie contract. This thing should get UFC bloody and ugly.

Before the end of training camp, I fully expect Petersonís pit bull/mouthpiece Bob Gretz and Johnsonís pit bull/mouthpiece Rhonda Moss to square off in a dogfight that will have Michael ďRon CujoĒ Vick flush with envy.

Seriously, Iím so glad Trent Green is finally gone. Bickering over the value and treatment of a filthy-rich, 37-year-old quarterback was a bit boring for my taste, especially when you know Peterson could just as easily botch a fourth-round pick as a sixth.

The Green-Peterson scrap sounded like a Leawood father and son arguing over whether the kid deserves the fully loaded SUV or the sport package. Peterson-Johnson has the promise of getting as rowdy as me and my brother coming to blows over the last pork chop at a Labor Day barbecue.

Right now, my money is on The Last King of Mediocrity.

Heís been in the gym training for this bout ever since Priest Holmes bamboozled the Chiefs out of a final payday and quickly retired to a life of nachos, yearly, inconclusive MRI scans on his spine and babyís mama drama.

King Carl vowed never again. Only Tony Gonzalez and Tom Condon are allowed to fleece the Huntís bank account under Petersonís watch. Peterson would rather name Ethan Locke head coach and put Jack Harry in charge of ticket prices than reward Larry Johnson with LaDainian Tomlinson-type money.

And, in many respects, Peterson is holding all of the leverage. Peterson gleefully watched as his new head coach, Herm Edwards, overworked Johnson all last season, giving him an NFL record number of carries. Edwards used Johnson in a way that indicated the Chiefs donít have long-term plans for Johnson.

Peterson could refuse to offer Johnson a fair contract extension, run L.J. into the ground again this season, slap the franchise tag on him for the 2008 season and discard Johnson in 2009.

That would be the cold-blooded business move. Based on the way Johnson has conducted himself in his years as a Chief, Iím not sure many fans would be sympathetic toward Johnson. He has never pretended to be much of a team guy, so few people will care if the Chiefs treat Johnson in a selfish manner.

Johnsonís leverage is a 2007 holdout. Heís on the books to earn about $1.7 million this year. If he sits out and sacrifices the money, the Chiefs could be the 2006 Oakland Raiders. Those Raiders, despite a very good defense, finished 2-14 and scored just 168 points. They were darn near impossible to watch.

The Chiefs could be that bad. Without Johnson, I honestly donít know how the Chiefs score a point. By midseason, Arrowhead Stadium would be half empty on game day. By the end of the season, youíd swear the Royals were playing football.

And L.J.ís absence would certainly hamper the development of Brodie Croyle.

The problem for Johnson is that The Last King of Mediocrity could survive a 2-14 season. With Green in Miami and the Chiefs breaking in a new quarterback, Peterson could use 2-14 as a true rebuilding year, and Chiefs fans would be excited about having the No. 1 pick (although the enthusiasm would be tempered by the knowledge that Peterson would draft Todd Blackledge).

Again, Peterson is bunkered in and ready for a losing season. Johnson is not prepared to sacrifice $1.7 million. Thatís money heíll never get back. Plus, heíll be a year older and still looking for a new contract.

Peterson is a heavy favorite in this fight, but weíve seen him blow 13-3 regular seasons and home-field advantage, so anything is a possibility.

wolfpack
06-06-2007, 10:01 AM
i can`t see this getting real ugly,as in fatlock and his brother fighting and eating porkchops, LJ is the queen`s baby. it might look like a bit&h fight than a knock down brawl.

Chiefster
06-06-2007, 11:28 AM
i can`t see this getting real ugly,as in fatlock and his brother fighting and eating porkchops, LJ is the queen`s baby. it might look like a bit&h fight than a knock down brawl.


Those can be pretty entertaining; have you ever seen two girls go at it?

timbok
06-07-2007, 09:17 AM
lol....psycho chief fan!
JK

stlchief
06-08-2007, 11:23 PM
Bottom line: Either LJ or Allen will not be in Chiefs Red & Gold next year. The Chiefs would be crazy to offer either the $ they want. So we franchise one and the other says thanks and heads off to free agency.

If you ask me, Peterson painted himself into a corner by not trading one of them this year or by not signing one to a multi-year contract.

Amazing. Now both are ticked to have to play for us THIS year. One of them will still be ticked next year, but it will be under the franchise tag.

Think of the draft picks LJ would have brought. And the league is full of unknown running backs who become successes.

If you ask me, having both Allen & LJ in a Chiefs uniform on opening day of a "rebuilding" year with contracts that end after this season was the biggest mistake of the last several seasons.

Forget rebuilding - we make our run this year, because we start 2008 with a big hole on one side of the ball....

Chiefster
06-09-2007, 05:20 AM
Bottom line: Either LJ or Allen will not be in Chiefs Red & Gold next year. The Chiefs would be crazy to offer either the $ they want. So we franchise one and the other says thanks and heads off to free agency.

If you ask me, Peterson painted himself into a corner by not trading one of them this year or by not signing one to a multi-year contract.

Amazing. Now both are ticked to have to play for us THIS year. One of them will still be ticked next year, but it will be under the franchise tag.

Think of the draft picks LJ would have brought. And the league is full of unknown running backs who become successes.

If you ask me, having both Allen & LJ in a Chiefs uniform on opening day of a "rebuilding" year with contracts that end after this season was the biggest mistake of the last several seasons.

Forget rebuilding - we make our run this year, because we start 2008 with a big hole on one side of the ball....

We have huge holes on one side of the ball this year; it has become the way of the Chiefs unfortunately. However, I doubt you can find an NFL team without holes to fill of some kind.

stlchief
06-09-2007, 02:36 PM
All teams having holes is a given. The real crime is developing a talent and then letting it go without any compensation (as will happen with LJ or Allen next year) is beyond forgiveness. Unless Carl has some trick up his sleeve, but I doubt it. The only way to keep both is to pay huge to both. While everyone will be happy for a year, salary cap will hurt us the next year or two.

So I go on record: One of them is franchised and one of them walks next year.

(but I have been wrong in just about every other post I have made here....)

Chiefster
06-09-2007, 07:01 PM
All teams having holes is a given. The real crime is developing a talent and then letting it go without any compensation (as will happen with LJ or Allen next year) is beyond forgiveness. Unless Carl has some trick up his sleeve, but I doubt it. The only way to keep both is to pay huge to both. While everyone will be happy for a year, salary cap will hurt us the next year or two.

So I go on record: One of them is franchised and one of them walks next year.

(but I have been wrong in just about every other post I have made here....)


...Sounds plausible to me.

chief31
06-09-2007, 09:39 PM
All teams having holes is a given. The real crime is developing a talent and then letting it go without any compensation (as will happen with LJ or Allen next year) is beyond forgiveness. Unless Carl has some trick up his sleeve, but I doubt it. The only way to keep both is to pay huge to both. While everyone will be happy for a year, salary cap will hurt us the next year or two.

So I go on record: One of them is franchised and one of them walks next year.

(but I have been wrong in just about every other post I have made here....)

Aside from the Franchise tag, there is a Transitional tag. It works, in the same way, as the Franchise tag, with a lesser compensation. So, it would be fair to assume that we could find them both here, next season, as well.

This could be considered "something up C.P.s sleeve."

Chiefster
06-10-2007, 05:20 AM
Aside from the Franchise tag, there is a Transitional tag. It works, in the same way, as the Franchise tag, with a lesser compensation. So, it would be fair to assume that we could find them both here, next season, as well.

This could be considered "something up C.P.s sleeve."


Yup, David Copperfield has nothing on CP.

stlchief
06-15-2007, 10:54 PM
...Sounds plausible to me.


touche.

Chiefster
06-15-2007, 11:14 PM
touche.

LOL!
:D

TheLateGreat#58Fan
06-19-2007, 10:39 PM
It seems like maybe Jared Allen has comeback down to earth a little I think there is no way they dont lock LJ up to a long contract. Maybe we willget Jared Allen back to-that seems to be based on whether he gets his head out of the top 3 DL in the league money. I like him and would love to see another 1-2 punch like we used to have with Derrick Thomas and Neil Smith. I miss seeing them line up gettin after the QB (I might be getting a little teary eyed sorry) How I miss havign a defense- but I think we may be back
I am excited Lets go KC

Chiefster
06-20-2007, 12:17 AM
It seems like maybe Jared Allen has comeback down to earth a little I think there is no way they dont lock LJ up to a long contract. Maybe we willget Jared Allen back to-that seems to be based on whether he gets his head out of the top 3 DL in the league money. I like him and would love to see another 1-2 punch like we used to have with Derrick Thomas and Neil Smith. I miss seeing them line up gettin after the QB (I might be getting a little teary eyed sorry) How I miss havign a defense- but I think we may be back
I am excited Lets go KC

I loved watching those two make Elway quake in his cleats. :D

wolfpack
06-20-2007, 09:46 AM
It seems like maybe Jared Allen has comeback down to earth a little I think there is no way they dont lock LJ up to a long contract. Maybe we willget Jared Allen back to-that seems to be based on whether he gets his head out of the top 3 DL in the league money. I like him and would love to see another 1-2 punch like we used to have with Derrick Thomas and Neil Smith. I miss seeing them line up gettin after the QB (I might be getting a little teary eyed sorry) How I miss havign a defense- but I think we may be back
I am excited Lets go KC
Allen is coming back down to earth because someone,hopefully his mother, has slapped him in the back of his head. what a PR mess he got himself into by bad mouthing KC. the fans turned against him. also maybe the slapp`n also knocked some sence into him that he isnt as great as his agent says he is.

Chiefster
06-20-2007, 12:13 PM
Allen is coming back down to earth because someone,hopefully his mother, has slapped him in the back of his head. what a PR mess he got himself into by bad mouthing KC. the fans turned against him. also maybe the slapp`n also knocked some sence into him that he isnt as great as his agent says he is.


Yeah but he has the potential to be great; if he'll just keep his nose clean.

Canada
06-20-2007, 04:07 PM
Yeah but he has the potential to be great; if he'll just keep his nose clean.

Come on...he's not Michelle Irvin. lol Maybe we should all chip in and rent Jared a limo driver for the season. Or hire me to drink with him and it will be my resposnsibility to get him home. :) I know when to call a cab!!

Chiefster
06-20-2007, 05:28 PM
Come on...he's not Michelle Irvin. lol Maybe we should all chip in and rent Jared a limo driver for the season. Or hire me to drink with him and it will be my resposnsibility to get him home. :) I know when to call a cab!!

LOL!! Good point.

TheLateGreat#58Fan
06-21-2007, 11:11 AM
Come on...he's not Michelle Irvin. lol Maybe we should all chip in and rent Jared a limo driver for the season. Or hire me to drink with him and it will be my resposnsibility to get him home. :) I know when to call a cab!!

Thats a great idea i am also down for that you dont have to hire me, i will just go drink with him that would be a blast- sorry if I am condoning bad behavior but it still would be fun.

and in a side note for those of you that watch the NFL network am i the only one that has noticed that the only Chiefs games they replay on there are the ones we lost- i.e. Cleveland/KC last year and the Indy/KC home playoff loss shoot out that MAKES ME ABSOLUTELY SICK TO MY STOMACH

Canada
06-21-2007, 11:22 AM
Thats a great idea i am also down for that you dont have to hire me, i will just go drink with him that would be a blast- sorry if I am condoning bad behavior but it still would be fun.

and in a side note for those of you that watch the NFL network am i the only one that has noticed that the only Chiefs games they replay on there are the ones we lost- i.e. Cleveland/KC last year and the Indy/KC home playoff loss shoot out that MAKES ME ABSOLUTELY SICK TO MY STOMACH

That is not the bad behaviour. It is the driving home after that is the problem. I saw KC JAX the other day on the network (but it was game of the week, not Replay) But that is what makes us true Chiefs fans. Watching replays even when we know they lose!!

Chiefster
06-21-2007, 12:01 PM
Thats a great idea i am also down for that you dont have to hire me, i will just go drink with him that would be a blast- sorry if I am condoning bad behavior but it still would be fun.

and in a side note for those of you that watch the NFL network am i the only one that has noticed that the only Chiefs games they replay on there are the ones we lost- i.e. Cleveland/KC last year and the Indy/KC home playoff loss shoot out that MAKES ME ABSOLUTELY SICK TO MY STOMACH


You bad behavior condoner you!

It is for this reason I'm glad I do not have NFL Network....Oh, who am I kidding.

BoredomReallySux
06-21-2007, 12:41 PM
LJ has now alluded to a hold out in another Whitlock interview.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/chiefs/story/158912.html

DrunkHillbilly
07-10-2007, 01:56 PM
So am I hearing that some of you don't think LJ is worth big money? It must be because of his moods because you surely can't complain about his stats!

Coach
07-10-2007, 06:41 PM
So am I hearing that some of you don't think LJ is worth big money? It must be because of his moods because you surely can't complain about his stats!

Agreed on his stats. He put up big rushing numbers. He also had more attempts than any other RBin the NFL last year and had a decent offensive line to help him out. I think he is a good RB, but his character issues scare me. I can just see his effort level dropping off the face of the earth if he gets guaranteed money. He is a perfect RB for the Herm Edwards style offense though.

DrunkHillbilly
07-10-2007, 07:42 PM
Exactly my point admin! Herm is our coach and he LOVES to run the ball! Not sure if there is a better RB in the league with the offense he runs! I am however concerned that over the next couple of years that with as many carries as he gets, he could get injured or just run out of gas!

wolfpack
07-11-2007, 09:46 AM
untill he learns to catch passes coming out of the backfield and learns to block, he isnt worth the money.

chief31
07-11-2007, 10:06 AM
And to run the ball, the same way he does, to the inside, when asked to run to the outside. Or, just to fix his overall effort problem.

DrunkHillbilly
07-11-2007, 12:35 PM
He catches the ball out of the backfield fine!!! He's not Priest but who is? I will say he needs to improve his blocking!! If you ever saw him in college, he ran the same way then. When he went outside, he waited to get a block. I think he did ok then when he went for 2000+ yards. Hell, LT would have problems running behind this pathetic line and a reciever or two might help! We have one go to guy in Gonzales to throw the ball to and most of the time, he is too busy helping the O line block so it puts a lot of pressure on the RB position. Whoever it is!!!

wolfpack
07-11-2007, 04:11 PM
his catching the ball out of the backfield,fine? only if the throw is perfect and he dosent have to make an effort to catch it. i say trade him for two high draft picks. this years offense is more than likey going to be sad to watch. RUN,RUN,PASS,PUNT!

DrunkHillbilly
07-11-2007, 08:00 PM
his catching the ball out of the backfield,fine? only if the throw is perfect and he dosent have to make an effort to catch it. i say trade him for two high draft picks. this years offense is more than likey going to be sad to watch. RUN,RUN,PASS,PUNT!

Look at his numbers bud! How bout a reciever or two?????????????????????:violent-smiley-050:

wolfpack
07-11-2007, 08:19 PM
fine, a reciever and a o-lineman. its better than paying him what he wants. if he cries enough the queen will probably pay and the rest of the team willbe the losers in the long run. i say long run because arent we "retooling" for the years to come.

chief31
07-11-2007, 08:27 PM
Look at his numbers bud! How bout a reciever or two?????????????????????:violent-smiley-050:


The complaint about our wide recievers is funny, to me. When you have a tight end, who contends for the NFL lead, in receptions, that is your number one reciever. What you need, at wide reciever, then, is, essentially, a nuber two reciever. From 2001, to 2005 the Chiefs were the nuber one, or two, offense, in the NFL. That is with Eddie Kennison, as our number one wide reciever.

Now, although I didn't approve, the Chiefs have drafted a wide reciever, with their first round pick. How many wide recievers do you want?

DrunkHillbilly
07-11-2007, 11:48 PM
The complaint about our wide recievers is funny, to me. When you have a tight end, who contends for the NFL lead, in receptions, that is your number one reciever. What you need, at wide reciever, then, is, essentially, a nuber two reciever. From 2001, to 2005 the Chiefs were the nuber one, or two, offense, in the NFL. That is with Eddie Kennison, as our number one wide reciever.

Now, although I didn't approve, the Chiefs have drafted a wide reciever, with their first round pick. How many wide recievers do you want?

UHHHHH, that's why their called "recievers" and not "Tight Ends"! I can't believe you don't see this!! Eddie Kennison???? Listen to the people on TV talk about the lack of recievers we have. Listen to fans of other teams talk about us having no deep threat. You talk about Gonzo, he would be even MORE valuable if we had someone who could go deep! What part of 8 in the box every play don't you get? That's why LJ is forced to run outside, which is not his fortay! How bout a slot reciever to occupy a linebacker? Most football website list the WR position as the #1 need for the Chiefs followed by O line. Look it up!

Coach
07-11-2007, 11:58 PM
UHHHHH, that's why their called "recievers" and not "Tight Ends"! I can't believe you don't see this!! Eddie Kennison???? Listen to the people on TV talk about the lack of recievers we have. Listen to fans of other teams talk about us having no deep threat. You talk about Gonzo, he would be even MORE valuable if we had someone who could go deep! What part of 8 in the box every play don't you get? That's why LJ is forced to run outside, which is not his fortay! How bout a slot reciever to occupy a linebacker? Most football website list the WR position as the #1 need for the Chiefs followed by O line. Look it up!

I can see both sides of the argument since the Chiefs offense was proficient without any big name WR's. But I lean toward the side that says we needed WR receiver help this year. Looking back on the draft, I think the safer play would have been to get Joe Staley in the first and then either get a WR with the 2nd pick or pick up a free agent like Darrell Jackson. Instead San Fran did this. And I think you'll see it pay huge divedends for them this year.

DrunkHillbilly
07-12-2007, 12:02 AM
I can see both sides of the argument since the Chiefs offense was proficient without any big name WR's. But I lean toward the side that says we needed WR receiver help this year. Looking back on the draft, I think the safer play would have been to get Joe Staley in the first and then either get a WR with the 2nd pick or pick up a free agent like Darrell Jackson. Instead San Fran did this. And I think you'll see it pay huge divedends for them this year.

Year after year goes by and free agent WR's go by. Peterson doesn't want to pay! There were several free agents out there in the last few years I wish we would have taken a stab at. I was watching inside the NFL last season and all 4 of the hosts were almost laughing at the fact that we didn't have anyone to throw the ball to deep!

Coach
07-12-2007, 12:04 AM
Year after year goes by and free agent WR's go by. Peterson doesn't want to pay! There were several free agents out there in the last few years I wish we would have taken a stab at. I was watching inside the NFL last season and all 4 of the hosts were almost laughing at the fact that we didn't have anyone to throw the ball to deep!

The last WR that we had that I liked was Andre Rison. I think that was about 10 years ago.

DrunkHillbilly
07-12-2007, 12:06 AM
I can't remember any WR's that we have had that have been above average! Can anybody?

Coach
07-12-2007, 12:08 AM
I can't remember any WR's that we have had that have been above average! Can anybody?

Joe Horn became above average after he left.

DrunkHillbilly
07-12-2007, 12:12 AM
Isn't that how it always happens???? LOL! The Cardinals have had umpteen players that have turned into great players after they left here in the 18 or 19 years they have been in Az.

Coach
07-12-2007, 12:14 AM
Isn't that how it always happens???? LOL! The Cardinals have had umpteen players that have turned into great players after they left here in the 18 or 19 years they have been in Az.

Yeah like Jake the Snake. Just kidding.

DrunkHillbilly
07-12-2007, 12:24 AM
Out here we call him Jake the FAKE!!:rocketwhore: :rocketwhore:

Coach
07-12-2007, 12:41 AM
Out here we call him Jake the FAKE!!:rocketwhore: :rocketwhore:

I lived in Tempe when Jake was at ASU. He walked on water back then.

stlchief
07-12-2007, 02:34 AM
I can't remember any WR's that we have had that have been above average! Can anybody?

Stephon Page...

wolfpack
07-12-2007, 09:34 AM
you didnt need true #1 WR under dickies offense. they made defenses guess every play. under hermmie its easy,run,run,pass,punt. but LJ still isnt worth the money he wants.

DrunkHillbilly
07-12-2007, 11:59 AM
you didnt need true #1 WR under dickies offense. they made defenses guess every play. under hermmie its easy,run,run,pass,punt. but LJ still isnt worth the money he wants.

Is anyone worth the money they want? A couple of draft picks sure aren't going to be compensation!! Just like in all other sports, it's hard to trade certain players because there isn't many ways a team could be compensated for the player. Having said that, I understand the whole rebuilding phase we are in but to trade a top 5 player in the league would be assinine!

As far as a #1 recievers goes, howd we do with Martyball??? Always the bridesmaid!!! Never the bride! No balance equals no superbowls!! Look at the teams that have won the last 10 years or so. They all have a balanced offense! I bet that in the last 10 superbowls, 16 or 17 out of the 20 teams have thrown the ball to at least 6 or 7 different people. The Chiefs haven't thrown to 6 or 7 people since superbowl 1!! It's easy to take away the one thing a team does good so they have to resort to trying things they are not as good at. Hence, thats why the good teams are not one dimensional like the Chiefs! I might add that Hermie doesn't help this problem!

chief31
07-12-2007, 02:35 PM
UHHHHH, that's why their called "recievers" and not "Tight Ends"! I can't believe you don't see this!! Eddie Kennison???? Listen to the people on TV talk about the lack of recievers we have. Listen to fans of other teams talk about us having no deep threat. You talk about Gonzo, he would be even MORE valuable if we had someone who could go deep! What part of 8 in the box every play don't you get? That's why LJ is forced to run outside, which is not his fortay! How bout a slot reciever to occupy a linebacker? Most football website list the WR position as the #1 need for the Chiefs followed by O line. Look it up!

A) Yes, Eddie Kennison. The guy is entirely underrated. Just because Gonzales has better stats, doesn't mean that he isn't a terrific reciever. He runs excellent routes, catches the balls that he should and catches the balls that one could understand, if he didn't. The fact that he wasn't a number one reciever, for other teams, has no bearing on what he has done, with the Chiefs.

B) The opinions of "people on T.V." and "fans of other teams" make no difference. Until last year, the Chiefs and their "recieverless" offense, have been the most efficient offense, in the NFL.

C) The part that I "don't get" is that, having watched every Chiefs game, repeatedly, slow-mo, back-it-up, is that the "eight in the box" scenario didn't happen all that often. Until the playoff game.

D) L.J. has to run it, outside, because that is how football is played. You can not run the same play, over and over, becuse it is predictable. I don't care what L.J.s "fortay" is. If he were to put forth the same kind of effort, then he would become versatile. And, in the NFL, a runningback needs to be versatile. You think teams were "loading the box" last season? Just wait until this season. L.J. likes to run, between the tackles. With a year of having done so, the rest of the league now knows what he likes, and will be stuffing the middle, like never before. He had better learn some new tricks, or you will be spending alot of your time, making excuses for his Cadillac-like numbers.

E) "Most football websites....." Don't care.


Year after year goes by and free agent WR's go by. Peterson doesn't want to pay! There were several free agents out there in the last few years I wish we would have taken a stab at. I was watching inside the NFL last season and all 4 of the hosts were almost laughing at the fact that we didn't have anyone to throw the ball to deep!

"Year, after year goes by and...." and the Chiefs have been the number one offense, in the NFL. That has changed, now, since the offensive line has deteriorated.

"I was watching inside the NFL....." I have always found it to be ridiculous how critics have ripped the best offense, in the league, for not having anyone, to throw to. Watch the game, form your own opinions, not those of other people, that you think know what they are talking about.


Anyway, I hope you don't take any offense. I just love a good argument.

chief31
07-12-2007, 03:07 PM
Is anyone worth the money they want? A couple of draft picks sure aren't going to be compensation!! Just like in all other sports, it's hard to trade certain players because there isn't many ways a team could be compensated for the player. Having said that, I understand the whole rebuilding phase we are in but to trade a top 5 player in the league would be assinine!

As far as a #1 recievers goes, howd we do with Martyball??? Always the bridesmaid!!! Never the bride! No balance equals no superbowls!! Look at the teams that have won the last 10 years or so. They all have a balanced offense! I bet that in the last 10 superbowls, 16 or 17 out of the 20 teams have thrown the ball to at least 6 or 7 different people. The Chiefs haven't thrown to 6 or 7 people since superbowl 1!! It's easy to take away the one thing a team does good so they have to resort to trying things they are not as good at. Hence, thats why the good teams are not one dimensional like the Chiefs! I might add that Hermie doesn't help this problem!


I think you and I are alot closer to agreeing, than it may appear. In fact, I think the whole lot of us are.

"The Chiefs haven't thrown...." Are you kidding? Last season aside, the Chiefs were the "poster child" for spreading the ball around, in the passing game. That is exactly why Kennison didn't have "No.1 reciever" numbers. With Green throwing for 4000 yards, every year, who was catching the passes? Eveyone knows about Tony Gonzales. Eddie Kennison had good numbers, each year. Jonnie Morton, soon to be replaced with Sammie Parker, had good stats. Dante Hall was always a threat. Then you had Priest and T-Rich. Chiefs fans know that both of those guys were a threat, to catch the ball, out of the backfield. I'd even submit Jason Dunns name.

The obvious problem, until last season, was the defensive "implosions". Now, with Herm and Gunny rejuevenating the "D", the offense is the problem.

The offense went from the number one unit, in the league, to the fifteenth ranked offense. It seems obvious, to me, that the departures of Roaf and T-Rich, were the biggest contributors, to that decline.

This year, instead of attempting to bring in talented young prospects, to address those losses, we have lost Will Shields and brought in a Dolphins left tackle. Yet another loss, for the offensive line, as a unit.

Balance, within the passing game, isn't what has been missing. It's been balance, within the team. To compliment a good defense, you need a good offense. To compliment a good offense, you need a good defense.

DrunkHillbilly
07-13-2007, 02:15 PM
UHHHHH, that's why their called "recievers" and not "Tight Ends"! I can't believe you don't see this!! Eddie Kennison???? Listen to the people on TV talk about the lack of recievers we have. Listen to fans of other teams talk about us having no deep threat. You talk about Gonzo, he would be even MORE valuable if we had someone who could go deep! What part of 8 in the box every play don't you get? That's why LJ is forced to run outside, which is not his fortay! How bout a slot reciever to occupy a linebacker? Most football website list the WR position as the #1 need for the Chiefs followed by O line. Look it up!

A) Yes, Eddie Kennison. The guy is entirely underrated. Just because Gonzales has better stats, doesn't mean that he isn't a terrific reciever. He runs excellent routes, catches the balls that he should and catches the balls that one could understand, if he didn't. The fact that he wasn't a number one reciever, for other teams, has no bearing on what he has done, with the Chiefs.

B) The opinions of "people on T.V." and "fans of other teams" make no difference. Until last year, the Chiefs and their "recieverless" offense, have been the most efficient offense, in the NFL.

C) The part that I "don't get" is that, having watched every Chiefs game, repeatedly, slow-mo, back-it-up, is that the "eight in the box" scenario didn't happen all that often. Until the playoff game.

D) L.J. has to run it, outside, because that is how football is played. You can not run the same play, over and over, becuse it is predictable. I don't care what L.J.s "fortay" is. If he were to put forth the same kind of effort, then he would become versatile. And, in the NFL, a runningback needs to be versatile. You think teams were "loading the box" last season? Just wait until this season. L.J. likes to run, between the tackles. With a year of having done so, the rest of the league now knows what he likes, and will be stuffing the middle, like never before. He had better learn some new tricks, or you will be spending alot of your time, making excuses for his Cadillac-like numbers.

E) "Most football websites....." Don't care.


Year after year goes by and free agent WR's go by. Peterson doesn't want to pay! There were several free agents out there in the last few years I wish we would have taken a stab at. I was watching inside the NFL last season and all 4 of the hosts were almost laughing at the fact that we didn't have anyone to throw the ball to deep!

"Year, after year goes by and...." and the Chiefs have been the number one offense, in the NFL. That has changed, now, since the offensive line has deteriorated.

"I was watching inside the NFL....." I have always found it to be ridiculous how critics have ripped the best offense, in the league, for not having anyone, to throw to. Watch the game, form your own opinions, not those of other people, that you think know what they are talking about.


Anyway, I hope you don't take any offense. I just love a good argument.

WOW!!! Where to start??

A) I am not insinuating that Kennison is not a SALVAGABLE reciever. He has done well for the Chiefs. But he needs a little help!! He is not the horse that most PLAYOFF WINNING teams have. And he's 420 years old!! I never stated that TG was a terrific reciever. But, he's the best we got!!

B)You need to quit worrying about "the most efficient team in football"!!!!!
I'll give you a prime example....The Phoenix Suns. They have been the highest scoring , best 3 point shooting, best FG percentage shooting, best free throw shooting, ect..... top 2 or 3 in ALL offensive statistics in basketball. Absolutley great for the regular season!!!! Where has it gotten them??? Same place as the Chiefs!!!

C)The eight in the box thing. I mentioned in one of my prior posts that in the later stages of the season is when teams really start stacking the box. It has been Kennison out on an island with a shut down CB that can out run him everyday of the week and twice on Sunday and TG trying to help the O line block the blitz! Leaving no room for which ever RB is in to function.


D) I don't even know where to start!
Running outside and inside. Do you think all running backs change the way they play from year to year? Don't think so!! They play the way they have played their entire careers!
Cadillac numbers huh? How much money you got??? Mark my words..He will have more attempts, yds, recving yds, and td's than Cadillac!!!

E) Websites... There is a reason you and I don't have their jobs! They do this for a living! There is the occassional tool that doesn't get it but when they all say the same thing...I think there is something to it!

F) Inside NFL....When you have 3 out of the 4 guys that have played in the NFL and 2 of those 3 are Hall of Famers, I think they know a little about the game!

DrunkHillbilly
07-13-2007, 03:00 PM
I think you and I are alot closer to agreeing, than it may appear. In fact, I think the whole lot of us are.

"The Chiefs haven't thrown...." Are you kidding? Last season aside, the Chiefs were the "poster child" for spreading the ball around, in the passing game. That is exactly why Kennison didn't have "No.1 reciever" numbers. With Green throwing for 4000 yards, every year, who was catching the passes? Eveyone knows about Tony Gonzales. Eddie Kennison had good numbers, each year. Jonnie Morton, soon to be replaced with Sammie Parker, had good stats. Dante Hall was always a threat. Then you had Priest and T-Rich. Chiefs fans know that both of those guys were a threat, to catch the ball, out of the backfield. I'd even submit Jason Dunns name.

The obvious problem, until last season, was the defensive "implosions". Now, with Herm and Gunny rejuevenating the "D", the offense is the problem.

The offense went from the number one unit, in the league, to the fifteenth ranked offense. It seems obvious, to me, that the departures of Roaf and T-Rich, were the biggest contributors, to that decline.

This year, instead of attempting to bring in talented young prospects, to address those losses, we have lost Will Shields and brought in a Dolphins left tackle. Yet another loss, for the offensive line, as a unit.

Balance, within the passing game, isn't what has been missing. It's been balance, within the team. To compliment a good defense, you need a good offense. To compliment a good offense, you need a good defense.

When it comes to balance, everyone knows you have to have offense and defense!!!!

However, balance within the OFFENSE is far more important! How many times have you heard those guys on tv (that for some reason you don't think know what they are talking about, most being ex NFL players) talk about you have to be able to run the football to win in the NFL? Well, to run the ball you have to be able to pass the ball and even though Green had good numbers with 4000 yds (only 3 out of 9 or 10 years in the league) most of those yds were possession yds! Not much down the field to make the defense fear the long ball. We've never had any recievers with speed. If you don't want to listen to the guys on tv, look at the teams that have been winning the last 10 years or so, all balanced with RB's and Rcvrs.! Kennison and Sammy Knight and Dante Hall once in a while didn't, never has, and will never cut it! Maybe this Bowe kid can step it up!!

I think it's time to take off the rose colored glasses and see what everyone in the NFL has been seeing for the last several years!

One other thing, it's damn near impossible to trade a top 2 or 3 running back in the league and a top 10 player. Who is still young I might add. You just can't get value out of the deal. How do you give up that much talent and get a few draft picks and an avg. RB to replace him?

wolfpack
07-13-2007, 03:53 PM
if you have holes to fill,like the chiefs,then it is easy to give up that much talent for acouple or more high draft picks. and the money he`s asking for makes it even easier. like said before 1,000 yard RB is all you need in this retirement home offense. LJ back up`s might, i say might, beable to do that. hermmies offense dosent scare anyone like dickies did. trade LJ if possible, fill holes, remember we`re "retooling"

DrunkHillbilly
07-13-2007, 06:50 PM
Ma'am please step away from the koolaid!!!!

chief31
07-13-2007, 08:22 PM
Ma'am please step away from the koolaid!!!!

So, your argument is, that instaed of an offense that can move the ball by :running inside; running outside; running reverses; passing deep; passing middle depth; passing short or throwing screens, you want a balanced offense? Well, that makes me a NOOB then, because I have never seen a more balanced offense.

Look, go ask all of your T.V/magazine "experts" what the Chiefs' team needed, in '04 and '05. Defense. The offense was incredible. Period. Everyone on that offense was a deep threat. Maybe not a 75yard deep threat. But, according to most, the Chiefs were scoring too quickly, anyway.

You can "teach" me about how to manipulate opposing defenses, all you want, but every reason that you have for needing a deep threat, was already taken care of, on that defense. We needed a deep threat, to open the running lanes? Did you ever watch Preist Holmes run? Those lanes were open.

You want to argue that Greens statistics didn't tell the whole story about the Chiefs' offensive balance? Are you lost? It defines offensive balance. He threw mostly possession yards? Yeah, again, Priest Holmes. That was the nuber one offense in the NFL and it was the nuber one red-zone offense, in the NFL.

Your argument is confusing. That offense stomped ###. regular season, playoffs, whenever, they stomped ###. The defense was the only problem, with D.V.s Chiefs.

Dick Vermiel knows more about offense than all of your T.V./magazine experts, combined. Why didn't he want a "big-name" wideout?

I'll be back, I'm barbequeing.

Chiefster
07-13-2007, 08:51 PM
This is what like spirited debate and conversation! What else did I miss!

Oh, welcome aboard DrunkHillbilly! You and Canada aught to have much in common. :D

DrunkHillbilly
07-13-2007, 09:10 PM
So, your argument is, that instaed of an offense that can move the ball by :running inside; running outside; running reverses; passing deep; passing middle depth; passing short or throwing screens, you want a balanced offense? Well, that makes me a NOOB then, because I have never seen a more balanced offense.

Look, go ask all of your T.V/magazine "experts" what the Chiefs' team needed, in '04 and '05. Defense. The offense was incredible. Period. Everyone on that offense was a deep threat. Maybe not a 75yard deep threat. But, according to most, the Chiefs were scoring too quickly, anyway.

You can "teach" me about how to manipulate opposing defenses, all you want, but every reason that you have for needing a deep threat, was already taken care of, on that defense. We needed a deep threat, to open the running lanes? Did you ever watch Preist Holmes run? Those lanes were open.

You want to argue that Greens statistics didn't tell the whole story about the Chiefs' offensive balance? Are you lost? It defines offensive balance. He threw mostly possession yards? Yeah, again, Priest Holmes. That was the nuber one offense in the NFL and it was the nuber one red-zone offense, in the NFL.

Your argument is confusing. That offense stomped ###. regular season, playoffs, whenever, they stomped ###. The defense was the only problem, with D.V.s Chiefs.

Dick Vermiel knows more about offense than all of your T.V./magazine experts, combined. Why didn't he want a "big-name" wideout?

I'll be back, I'm barbequeing.

First of all, this is '07-'08. Noone is talking about '04.

Second... I never said anything about opening "running lanes"!

Third...Tell me the last time the Chiefs stomped ANYTHING IN THE PLAYOFFS????

Fourth...I said our 2nd need was to improve our O line.

Fifth... I still haven't heard your response to winning teams of the last 10 years WR's! The worst of those teams have had better recievers than the Chiefs have had in years!

A running game (which we have) opens up the game for strikes down the field. A deep threat(that we have maybe NEVER had) opens up the game for the running game. It's Pop Warner fundemental football!!

You want to bring up Priests years. AWESOME!!! How did we do? Notta ,Nothing, Zilch!!!! One and done in the playoffs! Uno Dos Adios!!! Chip the ball to Priest or Gonzo for a screen or a little slant pattern.

No team in football fears the Chiefs passing game!! Not even the Raiders!!!! They defend everything up the middle.

Here's the best part"I've never seen a more balanced offense"
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!!??????? ?
My kids team is more balanced! Come on man Seriously, do you watch other NFL teams play?

Someone has to say something about this comment!!!!!

I'm not questioning your knowledge of the game but some of your arguments are somewhat bewildering to say the least. You seem to be satisfied with the fact that the Chiefs in the past have had great regular seasons. I don't give a damn about the regular season!!!!! It's all about the post season!!! I want to win just enough to get into the playoffs and then step it up. Tell me again, how many points did we score in our lucky playoff game last season?? Hmmmm, guess who got shut down? LJ. why? Uhhh, they had 50 people in the box!!!!! I think the corners and safety's were even in the box! Either that or they were takin a water break! Damn, Im gonna miss that go to Dante Hall!???!! NO FREAKIN PASSING GAME!!!!

chief31
07-13-2007, 11:16 PM
Year after year goes by and free agent WR's go by. Peterson doesn't want to pay! There were several free agents out there in the last few years I wish we would have taken a stab at.


Well, to run the ball you have to be able to pass the ball



First of all, this is '07-'08. Noone is talking about '04.

Second... I never said anything about opening "running lanes"!

Third...Tell me the last time the Chiefs stomped ANYTHING IN THE PLAYOFFS????

Fourth...I said our 2nd need was to improve our O line.

Fifth... I still haven't heard your response to winning teams of the last 10 years WR's! The worst of those teams have had better recievers than the Chiefs have had in years!

A running game (which we have) opens up the game for strikes down the field. A deep threat(that we have maybe NEVER had) opens up the game for the running game. It's Pop Warner fundemental football!!

You want to bring up Priests years. AWESOME!!! How did we do? Notta ,Nothing, Zilch!!!! One and done in the playoffs! Uno Dos Adios!!! Chip the ball to Priest or Gonzo for a screen or a little slant pattern.

No team in football fears the Chiefs passing game!! Not even the Raiders!!!! They defend everything up the middle.

Here's the best part"I've never seen a more balanced offense"
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!!??????? ?
My kids team is more balanced! Come on man Seriously, do you watch other NFL teams play?

Someone has to say something about this comment!!!!!

I'm not questioning your knowledge of the game but some of your arguments are somewhat bewildering to say the least. You seem to be satisfied with the fact that the Chiefs in the past have had great regular seasons. I don't give a damn about the regular season!!!!! It's all about the post season!!! I want to win just enough to get into the playoffs and then step it up. Tell me again, how many points did we score in our lucky playoff game last season?? Hmmmm, guess who got shut down? LJ. why? Uhhh, they had 50 people in the box!!!!! I think the corners and safety's were even in the box! Either that or they were takin a water break! Damn, Im gonna miss that go to Dante Hall!???!! NO FREAKIN PASSING GAME!!!!

O.k barbeque is done. Lots of work to do, here.

A) Read your own posts, you brought-up previous years, in regards to the need for recievers. That is where I challenged you, to begin with. It is the basis, for everything that I have argued.

B) While you didn't say :opening running lanes" I assumed that you knew what you were talking about, when you said " to run the ball, you have to be able to pass the ball. But, upon looking back, I see that that was just repeating what someone else, who did know, had said.

C) Tell you the last time the Chiefs stomped anyhting in the playoffs... Well, since we were talking about the Chiefs offense... How about the Colts' defense? I'm gonna go ahead and move this one ahead a spot. You'll say..."What good did that do them?!?!?!" Nothing. Because, as I said before, the defense was the problem.

D) You said our second need was O-line. I take exception to that, because, as I said before, the offense can be incredible "without recievers". I know that, because it had been, for several years. When we had an offensive line. Now, let me add, that this was the offseason, that I fealt we needed to draft a wideout. Because Eddie Kennison is.... Where's it at?....oh, 420 years old.

E) Winning teams, the last ten years.... I disagree. Eddie Kennison has the skills of a top-ten reciever, in the NFL. (Albeit diminishing, at this point. Since he is "420" years old.) Everyone overlooks his talent, because he was not the primary target of the Chiefs' offense. Hard to be the big name, on an offense that has Gonzales, Holmes and Green.

F) "A running game...." Without an offensive line, you don't get to throw the ball, down the field. And our current running game includes nothing, to the outside. A one-dimentional running game doesn't open up a whole lot, especially if you can't protect your quarterback.

E) If you have seen a more balanced defense than the Chiefs' during Vermiels tenure..... GTFO. (Your sons Pop-Warner team)There hasn't been any. Many that were comparable, even arguable. But, that was, at least, one of the most balanced offenive systems, ever created.

F) "They had fifty people in the box!!!" How do you get to argue both sides of the argument? Why didn't the Chiefs have a passing game? I'm gonna guess what you'd say, again..." Because they have no recievers!!!!!!" (Probably should have thrown in a "FREAKIN'") This is where you are WRONG!!!!! That same bunch of recievers were part of the number one offense, a year before. The difference between a number one offense and a number fifteen offense, that couldn't manage a first down in the playoffs, is offensive line. (Poor play-calling had a hand in it, too.)

Do me a favor... Read what you have already posted, so I don't have to quote you several times, to show you what you said. It takes up alot of room.

Chiefster
07-13-2007, 11:29 PM
Might I also add that spell check is a must in order to make sense of what one types.:p

DrunkHillbilly
07-14-2007, 12:24 AM
O.k barbeque is done. Lots of work to do, here.

A) Read your own posts, you brought-up previous years, in regards to the need for recievers. That is where I challenged you, to begin with. It is the basis, for everything that I have argued.

B) While you didn't say :opening running lanes" I assumed that you knew what you were talking about, when you said " to run the ball, you have to be able to pass the ball. But, upon looking back, I see that that was just repeating what someone else, who did know, had said.

C) Tell you the last time the Chiefs stomped anyhting in the playoffs... Well, since we were talking about the Chiefs offense... How about the Colts' defense? I'm gonna go ahead and move this one ahead a spot. You'll say..."What good did that do them?!?!?!" Nothing. Because, as I said before, the defense was the problem.

D) You said our second need was O-line. I take exception to that, because, as I said before, the offense can be incredible without. I know that, because it had been, for several years. When we had an offensive line. Now, let me add, that this was the offseason, that I fealt we needed to draft a wideout. Because Eddie Kennison is.... Where's it at?....oh, 420 years old.

E) Winning teams, the last ten years.... I disagree. Eddie Kennison has the skills of a top-ten receiver, in the NFL. (Albeit diminishing, at this point. Since he is "420" years old.) Everyone overlooks his talent, because he was not the primary target of the Chiefs' offense. Hard to be the big name, on an offense that has Gonzales, Holmes and Green.

F) "A running game...." Without an offensive line, you don't get to throw the ball, down the field. And our current running game includes nothing, to the outside. A one-dimentional running game doesn't open up a whole lot, especially if you can't protect your quarterback.

E) If you have seen a more balanced defense than the Chiefs' during Vermiels tenure..... GTFO. (Your sons Pop-Warner team)There hasn't been any. Many that were comparable, even arguable. But, that was, at least, one of the most balanced offenive systems, ever created.

F) "They had fifty people in the box!!!" How do you get to argue both sides of the argument? Why didn't the Chiefs have a passing game? I'm gonna guess what you'd say, again..." Because they have no receivers!!!!!!" (Probably should have thrown in a "FREAKIN'") This is where you are WRONG!!!!! That same bunch of recievers were part of the number one offense, a year before. The difference between a number one offense and a number fifteen offense, that couldn't manage a first down in the playoffs, is offensive line. (Poor play-calling had a hand in it, too.)

Do me a favor... Read what you have already posted, so I don't have to quote you several times, to show you what you said. It takes up alot of room.

I can't exactly make out what you are saying but I will do my best...

A) Whaaat? If your insinuating that I said we have had no receivers for years, your right, i did!

B)English please! We all know they are suppose to open lanes but that doesn't always happen now does it? There are other duties to that positions job.

C)I'm still waiting for you to tell me the last time the Chiefs stomped anything in the playoffs.
What does the Colts defense have to do with the Chiefs offense? And as pathetic as everyone said the Colts defense was, it held the Chiefs well balanced offense with a top 10 receiver to 3 points I believe!

D) I'm just not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that they have not had an O line for years? Slow down with the fingers so we can read it.

E)Kennison the skills of a top 10 receiver! I bet he's not ranked in the top 25!!! I know your a die hard but wake up and get back to reality!!!

F)I'm not sure what you mean by arguing both sides but...
First of all, the Chiefs haven't had the top rated offense since 2002. So your right, we had the same receivers we had the year before and did nothing!! Next, play calling had EVERYTHING to do with it! Let me ask you this, do you think lack of faith in the receiving game had anything to do with the fact that virtually no passing plays were called the entire game?

G) You do all of us a favor, hit spell and quotation check before submit reply so we can understand what's going on!

chief31
07-14-2007, 01:32 AM
I can't exactly make out what you are saying but I will do my best...

A) Whaaat? If your insinuating that I said we have had no receivers for years, your right, i did!

B)English please! We all know they are suppose to open lanes but that doesn't always happen now does it? There are other duties to that positions job.

C)I'm still waiting for you to tell me the last time the Chiefs stomped anything in the playoffs.
What does the Colts defense have to do with the Chiefs offense? And as pathetic as everyone said the Colts defense was, it held the Chiefs well balanced offense with a top 10 receiver to 3 points I believe!

D) I'm just not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that they have not had an O line for years? Slow down with the fingers so we can read it.

E)Kennison the skills of a top 10 receiver! I bet he's not ranked in the top 25!!! I know your a die hard but wake up and get back to reality!!!

F)I'm not sure what you mean by arguing both sides but...
First of all, the Chiefs haven't had the top rated offense since 2002. So your right, we had the same receivers we had the year before and did nothing!! Next, play calling had EVERYTHING to do with it! Let me ask you this, do you think lack of faith in the receiving game had anything to do with the fact that virtually no passing plays were called the entire game?

G) You do all of us a favor, hit spell and quotation check before submit reply so we can understand what's going on!

Forget it. I don't speak drunkhillbilly, appearently.

chief31
07-14-2007, 01:53 AM
First of all, the Chiefs haven't had the top rated offense since 2002. So your right, we had the same receivers we had the year before and did nothing!!!


Do you speak numbers?

2005

Offensive yards per game

1. K.C. 387.0
2. Sea. 369.7

passing yards per game

6. K.C. 238.1

2004

offensive yards per game

1. K.C. 418.4
2. Ind. 404.7

passing yards per game

4. K.C. 275.4

2003

offensive yards per game

1. Min. 393.4
2. K.C. 369.4

point per game

1. K.C. 30.3
2. StL. 27.9

passing yards per game

1. Ind 261.2
2. K.C.248.8

2002

offensive yards per game

4. K.C. 375.0

points per game

1. K.C. 29.2
2. Oak 28.1

All statistics, gathered from yahoo sports.

DrunkHillbilly
07-14-2007, 10:33 AM
Ha Ha...This is becoming comical!!

So, do they determine TOTAL offense by.. Offensive yds or...
Passing yds or...
Points ?
Let me help you out. It's a combination of all of them plus a few more things.

It's obvious you don't have a clue! I did make a mistake however. I said 2002. I was wrong, it was 2003! Sorry, those last 2 beers got to me!

Go back to your YAHOO sports and look up TEAM STATS and go to sortable offensive team statistics.

Chiefs...2006.. 15th
2005.. 6th
2004.. 2nd
2003.. 1st
So, although these are good stats, they were not number 1 year before last as you have said! If your gonna use the web for your research instead of your head, it would behoove you to slow down a little and get the statistics right. Again, I used your source.

I think the smoke from the BBQ has clouded your cerebral cortex!!! I'm not a Doctor but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!!!!!!!

Canada
07-14-2007, 11:29 AM
This is what like spirited debate and conversation! What else did I miss!

Oh, welcome aboard DrunkHillbilly! You and Canada aught to have much in common. :D

Are you implying that I am a drunken hillbilly? Not that there is anything wrong with that.

DrunkHillbilly
07-14-2007, 12:22 PM
Sum*****es!!!!! LOL!

chief31
07-14-2007, 12:35 PM
Offensive yards per game

1. K.C. 387.0
2. Sea. 369.7


2004

offensive yards per game

1. K.C. 418.4
2. Ind. 404.7

2003

offensive yards per game

1. Min. 393.4
2. K.C. 369.4


2002

offensive yards per game

4. K.C. 375.0


All statistics, gathered from yahoo sports.


Ha Ha...This is becoming comical!!

So, do they determine TOTAL offense by.. Offensive yds or...
Passing yds or...
Points ?
Let me help you out. It's a combination of all of them plus a few more things.

It's obvious you don't have a clue! I did make a mistake however. I said 2002. I was wrong, it was 2003! Sorry, those last 2 beers got to me!

Go back to your YAHOO sports and look up TEAM STATS and go to sortable offensive team statistics.

Chiefs...2006.. 15th
2005.. 6th
2004.. 2nd
2003.. 1st
So, although these are good stats, they were not number 1 year before last as you have said! If your gonna use the web for your research instead of your head, it would behoove you to slow down a little and get the statistics right. Again, I used your source.

I think the smoke from the BBQ has clouded your cerebral cortex!!! I'm not a Doctor but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!!!!!!!

I should have known that the extra numbers would have thrown you. You haven't been able to read anything else.

You have a problem admitting you are wrong. Rather you want to call D.V.s offense no. 1, or "top-six" the point is there. You can have a highly successful offense, without Chad Johnson. (Or whichever reciever you like to throw in there.) If the '04 Chiefs had the top two recievers, in the NFL, they still would have lost their playoff game. The defense never stopped the Colts.

DrunkHillbilly
07-14-2007, 12:39 PM
Hey chief31......

I have another great example of receivers succeeding without an O line. THE ARIZONA CARDINALS!!!!! They have had the worst offensive line in football and their 2 main receivers are studs.

Boldin has averaged 1200 plus yds and 6 or 7 TD's 3 out of the last 4 years.
Fitzgerald has averaged 1000 yds plus and 8 or 9 TD's 2 out of his 3 years.

This has been accomplished with NO tight end, worst O line in football and an aging quarterback that has only played 16 games total in 2 seasons!!!! The rookie started 9 games last season!

DrunkHillbilly
07-14-2007, 12:50 PM
I should have known that the extra numbers would have thrown you. You haven't been able to read anything else.

You have a problem admitting you are wrong. Rather you want to call D.V.s offense no. 1, or "top-six" the point is there. You can have a highly successful offense, without Chad Johnson. (Or whichever reciever you like to throw in there.) If the '04 Chiefs had the top two recievers, in the NFL, they still would have lost their playoff game. The defense never stopped the Colts.

As far as Dickie's offense goes, I was just letting you know that the stats you had looked up were wrong!!! Now for the mentally challenged portion of our show....... Have you heard me say defense doesn't matter???????????????????????????? NEVER!!!! But you can't expect to score 3 damn points and win against the girls flag football team at your gradeschool!!!! We have our defense in good position. It was decent last season. You have to score points to win the game!! Defense matters but if you hold the other team to 14 points, you have to score 15 to win!!!

I'll say it one more time reeeeaaalllllll slooooowwwwwww.

You can't run the ball if you can't open the game up with a passing game! Just like you can't pass the ball unless you have a viable threat at the running back position!! Ask anybody you know, they will tell you the same!

GET IT????:character00230: :character00230: :character00230: :character00230:

chief31
07-14-2007, 01:10 PM
You keep arguing against the '06 numbers, when we are in agreeance already.

The numbers I gave a right.

The Cardinals O-line is a bad run-blocking group, but a pretty good pass-blocking group.

chief31
07-14-2007, 01:13 PM
I don't care if you have Jerry Rice and a young Randy Moss, at reciever. If you have Jordan Black at left tackle, you don't get to throw bombs.

chief31
07-14-2007, 01:17 PM
you can't pass the ball unless you have a viable threat at the running back position!!



Arizona Cardinals? Your example above.

DrunkHillbilly
07-14-2007, 01:21 PM
Ok I get it.....YOU GIVE!! LOL!

The Cardinals O line is terrible all the way around. Yea, their better at the pass D than the run D but still just awful!!!! I think they just got better though. Leonard "FAT ***" "FALSE START" Davis can ruin the Cowboys unit this year! Although if the Cowboys move him to guard where he should be, he will do better.

This is the Bidwill **** I am talking about. He wouldn't move Davis to guard where his fat *** could clog up the middle. My 85 year old grandma with one leg could have run around his fat ***! Bidwill said he refused to pay a number 2 pick in the draft that kind of money to play guard!

Nevermind what's good for your football team! Jackoff!

DrunkHillbilly
07-14-2007, 01:30 PM
Arizona Cardinals? Your example above.

Last season.. E James...almost 1200 yds
Prior seasons... combination of 3 RB's.. about 970 some odd yds.

i never said the running game had to be by one back. In fact. I like the platoon theory.

chief31
07-14-2007, 01:33 PM
Last season.. E James...almost 1200 yds
Prior seasons... combination of 3 RB's.. about 970 some odd yds.

i never said the running game had to be by one back. In fact. I like the platoon theory.

Scary numbers, ehh?

Well, I guess that there were two teams, that had lower rushing totals. That must be what you mean by a "Viable threat"

DrunkHillbilly
07-14-2007, 01:37 PM
I don't care if you have Jerry Rice and a young Randy Moss, at reciever. If you have Jordan Black at left tackle, you don't get to throw bombs.

Offensive tackles for the most part are guys you plug in and if they work they work. There are a few out there that are outstanding but for the most part, if he's not on your team, you have never heard of him.

DrunkHillbilly
07-14-2007, 01:46 PM
Scary numbers, ehh?

Well, I guess that there were two teams, that had lower rushing totals. That must be what you mean by a "Viable threat"

I would say average.
High was at about 1800... LT
Low was about 700 and change.

I think James ranked about 10th or 12th in rushing. So yea, I would say "viable". You wouldn't?

chief31
07-14-2007, 01:46 PM
You have a lack of understanding, of the offense. It bears repeating...


I don't care if you have Jerry Rice and a young Randy Moss, at reciever. If you have Jordan Black at left tackle, you don't get to throw bombs.


Gotta have a pass-protector, for your quarterbacks blind-side.

chief31
07-14-2007, 01:47 PM
I would say average.
High was at about 1800... LT
Low was about 700 and change.

I think James ranked about 10th or 12th in rushing. So yea, I would say "viable". You wouldn't?

Average, is third from the bottom?

DrunkHillbilly
07-14-2007, 01:47 PM
Will somebody grab his tougue before he swallows it? I think he's having another seizure!!

DrunkHillbilly
07-14-2007, 01:50 PM
Average, is third from the bottom?

Those are just guesses off the top of my head but I bet if you look it up, somewhere around 1200 is average.

chief31
07-14-2007, 01:50 PM
I would say average.
High was at about 1800... LT
Low was about 700 and change.

I think James ranked about 10th or 12th in rushing. So yea, I would say "viable". You wouldn't?

The lowest rushing team in the NFL has been in the 1100 yrd area.

'06 Cardinals ranked 30th, in the league.

'05 Cardinals ranked 32nd, in the league. (That's dead last.)

DrunkHillbilly
07-14-2007, 01:58 PM
The lowest rushing team in the NFL has been in the 1100 yrd area.

'06 Cardinals ranked 30th, in the league.

'05 Cardinals ranked 32nd, in the league. (That's dead last.)

Sorry, When I said this I was directing this more to E James. My bad.

chief31
07-14-2007, 02:02 PM
Sorry, When I said this I was directing this more to E James. My bad.

Well, froma productivity standpoint, 3.4 yards per carry is pretty bad. The fact that he didn't platoon only makes his totals look, "decent"

DrunkHillbilly
07-14-2007, 02:10 PM
Well, froma productivity standpoint, 3.4 yards per carry is pretty bad. The fact that he didn't platoon only makes his totals look, "decent"

Agreed but it's not his call to platoon or not. Besides 1200 yds isn't exactly terrible. Especially at 3.4 a carry!

chief31
07-14-2007, 02:19 PM
Agreed but it's not his call to platoon or not. Besides 1200 yds isn't exactly terrible. Especially at 3.4 a carry!

The fact is, that the Cardinals (you own example) make a liar out of you.



you can't pass the ball unless you have a viable threat at the running back position


In 2005 the Arizona Cardinals ranked LAST in rushing, yet somehow managed to compile more passing yards than any other team, in the NFL. They raked FIRST, in passing yards.

DrunkHillbilly
07-14-2007, 04:12 PM
The fact is, that the Cardinals (you own example) make a liar out of you.



In 2005 the Arizona Cardinals ranked LAST in rushing, yet somehow managed to compile more passing yards than any other team, in the NFL. They raked FIRST, in passing yards.

That's a good point but that proves my point about having a balanced offense. Because the Cardinals STILL had a losing season!

Not sure if you watch to other NFL games or listen to anyone talk about football but you can pick your favorite commentator and I promise you he will agree with my statement! You as a team CAN NOT be succesful ( as in superbowl possibilities) without doing both!

I bet if I looked enough, I could find a quote from someone in football that has said exactly what I said. In fact I bet you know it is true but you just want to argue! You have to pass to run and run to pass. It's been that way since the beginning of time!

wolfpack
07-16-2007, 09:35 AM
if our WR can become somewhat of a threat and with Tony G, then a average 1000 yard back becomes a threat. balance as you say. and you can become balanced without paying LJ those huge $$ that he wants. if he wont meet in the middle,,,,, trade him.

kenny1937
07-16-2007, 01:33 PM
if our WR can become somewhat of a threat and with Tony G, then a average 1000 yard back becomes a threat. balance as you say. and you can become balanced without paying LJ those huge $$ that he wants. if he wont meet in the middle,,,,, trade him.

Yes, well said, along with a offensive coordinator who is not predictable, and you have a good mix for a run at the Super Bowl.

:mob: Where's Carl!!

Chiefster
07-16-2007, 02:59 PM
I've said it before and will again; I truly believe that CP will strike a deal with LJ, but should CP not then he would be a complete idiot not to get value for LJ in a trade somewhere. IMO

chief31
07-16-2007, 05:56 PM
That's a good point but that proves my point about having a balanced offense. Because the Cardinals STILL had a losing season!

Not sure if you watch to other NFL games or listen to anyone talk about football but you can pick your favorite commentator and I promise you he will agree with my statement! You as a team CAN NOT be succesful ( as in superbowl possibilities) without doing both!

I bet if I looked enough, I could find a quote from someone in football that has said exactly what I said. In fact I bet you know it is true but you just want to argue! You have to pass to run and run to pass. It's been that way since the beginning of time!

Not a matter I have ever disputed. I just think that a tight-end, like Gonzales, combined with a reciever like Kennison, (a year, or two back) makes a passing game, therefore, creates balance, with a strong running game.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. While the Chiefs, this offseason, needed to find a reciever, the offense, prior to last year, didn't have that need. They needed defense, to compliment a very balanced offense. Being in the top ten, of, nearly, every offensive catergory, is balance (within the offense).

The reason we need a reciever now, is because the O-line is gone and Eddie Kennison is old. With an O-line that included Roaf and Shields, (Comparable to any pair of O-linemen, ever to play together) an aging Kennison, combined with Gonzales, was more than sufficient.

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 06:14 PM
You should have see the '37 team!!!!! Who cares about then????

We need to deal in the NOW!!!!!!!

chief31
07-16-2007, 07:06 PM
You should have see the '37 team!!!!! Who cares about then????

We need to deal in the NOW!!!!!!!

You started the conversation about then, by saying we've needed a reciever, for years. That's the discussion I have been having, this whole time.

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 07:43 PM
You started the conversation about then, by saying we've needed a reciever, for years. That's the discussion I have been having, this whole time.

Meaning we STILL haven't addressed it! We drafted a WR, which someone(maybe you) doesn't think we should have done in the first round.

I just get upset because it is a glaring (IMO) need for this team. I keep talking about NOW and the FUTURE. Greens 4000 yds came because he had a ton of attempts and completions at 10-20 yds. I believe the Chiefs had one of the top offensive play attempt averages in the league.

Chiefster
07-16-2007, 08:02 PM
Meaning we STILL haven't addressed it! We drafted a WR, which someone(maybe you) doesn't think we should have done in the first round.

I just get upset because it is a glaring (IMO) need for this team. I keep talking about NOW and the FUTURE. Greens 4000 yds came because he had a ton of attempts and completions at 10-20 yds. I believe the Chiefs had one of the top offensive play attempt averages in the league.


Dude! A difference of oppinion is no reason to get upset; although I can appreciate your passion.

chief31
07-16-2007, 08:22 PM
Meaning we STILL haven't addressed it! We drafted a WR, which someone(maybe you) doesn't think we should have done in the first round.

I just get upset because it is a glaring (IMO) need for this team. I keep talking about NOW and the FUTURE. Greens 4000 yds came because he had a ton of attempts and completions at 10-20 yds. I believe the Chiefs had one of the top offensive play attempt averages in the league.

Agreed. But, if Damien Macintosh doesn't wind-up being alot better than Jordan Black was, (which is my greatest concern, about the Chiefs, this season) then no reciever is gonna get open downfield, because the quarterback will be running, or laying down, before then.

Canada
07-16-2007, 08:24 PM
Meaning we STILL haven't addressed it! We drafted a WR, which someone(maybe you) doesn't think we should have done in the first round.

I just get upset because it is a glaring (IMO) need for this team. I keep talking about NOW and the FUTURE. Greens 4000 yds came because he had a ton of attempts and completions at 10-20 yds. I believe the Chiefs had one of the top offensive play attempt averages in the league.

So they did or did not adress the WR need?

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 08:34 PM
So they did or did not adress the WR need?

I guess I would say kind of.

I noted several posts ago about 10 or so out of the 30 WR's that have been picked up through free agency in the past few years.

Every year for the past several IMO, the Chiefs have needed to address that position!

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 08:35 PM
Dude! A difference of oppinion is no reason to get upset; although I can appreciate your passion.

Not upset at anyone here.

Upset with the organization!

Canada
07-16-2007, 08:36 PM
I agree that it has been a position that could have used some improvement in past years but attention definitely needed to be directed elsewhere such as the defence...and now the o-line.

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 08:38 PM
Agreed. But, if Damien Macintosh doesn't wind-up being alot better than Jordan Black was, (which is my greatest concern, about the Chiefs, this season) then no reciever is gonna get open downfield, because the quarterback will be running, or laying down, before then.

I don't want to rehash this again but that's not true. As someone pointed out, look at the Az. Cardinals. 2, 1000+ yd receivers and the worst offensive line in football!

So it can be done but if there is nobody to throw the ball to AND your O line sucks, that's where you get into trouble.

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 08:40 PM
I agree that it has been a position that could have used some improvement in past years but attention definitely needed to be directed elsewhere such as the defence...and now the o-line.

I think they have addressed the D and it is well on it's way. At least it won't be the worst in the league, let's put it that way.

chief31
07-16-2007, 08:58 PM
I don't want to rehash this again but that's not true. As someone pointed out, look at the Az. Cardinals. 2, 1000+ yd receivers and the worst offensive line in football!

So it can be done but if there is nobody to throw the ball to AND your O line sucks, that's where you get into trouble.

The fact that they were able to throw the ball, that well, is because their offensive line knows how to pass-block. You just can't throw deep, from your back. Period.

Canada
07-16-2007, 09:06 PM
I don't want to rehash this again but that's not true. As someone pointed out, look at the Az. Cardinals. 2, 1000+ yd receivers and the worst offensive line in football!

So it can be done but if there is nobody to throw the ball to AND your O line sucks, that's where you get into trouble.

So they can throw, but Az would have done a lot better if they had the kind of defence that i think the Chiefs will this year. I think KC has a chance at a couple of 1,000 yd receivers. Tony G, Kennison and we will see what the new kid does. Next year we shore up the O-line top up the corners and try to find a nice late round receiver...and the dynasty begins!

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 09:32 PM
The fact that they were able to throw the ball, that well, is because their offensive line knows how to pass-block. You just can't throw deep, from your back. Period.

You guys have been tellin me that the O line is the most important thing for the offense and QB. What gives???

The Cardinals O line sucked period!!! Pass, run, crawl, everything!!! Worst at all of it in the league!

Trust me, I watched every game!

chief31
07-16-2007, 10:10 PM
You guys have been tellin me that the O line is the most important thing for the offense and QB. What gives???

The Cardinals O line sucked period!!! Pass, run, crawl, everything!!! Worst at all of it in the league!

Trust me, I watched every game!
How was the quarterback throwing, if the "worst O-line, in the league" was failing to pass-block. Shouldn't the quarterback be laying down, immediately?

Coach
07-16-2007, 10:21 PM
Agreed. But, if Damien Macintosh doesn't wind-up being alot better than Jordan Black was, (which is my greatest concern, about the Chiefs, this season) then no reciever is gonna get open downfield, because the quarterback will be running, or laying down, before then.

You have expressed this concern consistently the last few months. I hope for the Chiefs sake that he pleasantly surprises us all. I have a hard time believing that he won't be better than I-65.


I agree that it has been a position that could have used some improvement in past years but attention definitely needed to be directed elsewhere such as the defence...and now the o-line.
I can't disagree with this. A perfect assessment from the drunk canuck IMO.:RockOn - not mine:


I don't want to rehash this again but that's not true. As someone pointed out, look at the Az. Cardinals. 2, 1000+ yd receivers and the worst offensive line in football!

So it can be done but if there is nobody to throw the ball to AND your O line sucks, that's where you get into trouble.

The Cardinals had 2-thousand yard receivers because they are superior talents and the Cards were always trailing in games. The offensive line was non-existent by just about any analyst's account. Edgerrin was a non-factor in that offense because of this.


You guys have been tellin me that the O line is the most important thing for the offense and QB. What gives???

The Cardinals O line sucked period!!! Pass, run, crawl, everything!!! Worst at all of it in the league!

Trust me, I watched every game!
Again, a lot of the passing yeards for the Cards were against prevent defenses. They do not accurately reflect the pass protection the offensive line provided IMO.

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 11:38 PM
How was the quarterback throwing, if the "worst O-line, in the league" was failing to pass-block. Shouldn't the quarterback be laying down, immediately?

Please tell me your not doubting the fact that they had the worst line?

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 11:44 PM
You have expressed this concern consistently the last few months. I hope for the Chiefs sake that he pleasantly surprises us all. I have a hard time believing that he won't be better than I-65.


I can't disagree with this. A perfect assessment from the drunk canuck IMO.:RockOn - not mine:



The Cardinals had 2-thousand yard receivers because they are superior talents and the Cards were always trailing in games. The offensive line was non-existent by just about any analyst's account. Edgerrin was a non-factor in that offense because of this.



Again, a lot of the passing yeards for the Cards were against prevent defenses. They do not accurately reflect the pass protection the offensive line provided IMO.

Were the Cardinals trailing to the Chiefs?
How bout the bears?

The D and lack of red zone TD's is what killed the Cards.



What does accuratley reflect the pass protection? Wait, please don't say the yardage gained by the receivers.

Coach
07-16-2007, 11:53 PM
Were the Cardinals trailing to the Chiefs?
How bout the bears?



That is two games. The Cards lost 7 games by 10 points or more.

http://football.about.com/od/schedules/a/06sched_ARZ.htm

You watched the games. Do you really need me to point this out. Many of these games were blowouts and resulted in inflated passing attempts/yards.

DrunkHillbilly
07-17-2007, 12:21 AM
That is two games. The Cards lost 7 games by 10 points or more.

http://football.about.com/od/schedules/a/06sched_ARZ.htm

You watched the games. Do you really need me to point this out. Many of these games were blowouts and resulted in inflated passing attempts/yards.

You call 10 points a blowout? A few within 7 and 2 or 3 points as well.
As far as being behind, do a search on that and see if there were more than two games where they were actually ahead.

DrunkHillbilly
07-17-2007, 12:31 AM
That is two games. The Cards lost 7 games by 10 points or more.

http://football.about.com/od/schedules/a/06sched_ARZ.htm

You watched the games. Do you really need me to point this out. Many of these games were blowouts and resulted in inflated passing attempts/yards.

Both of the Cards receivers only had 1 catch over 50 yds.

One averaged about 11 yds a catch and the other about 15 yds a catch. Wouldn't ya think that if they were sooo far behind in games as you have eluded to, the would have to throw deep a few times?

Whether you think it's true or not, they had the worst O line in football and had success at the passing game. Edge still had 1000+ yds and that seems to be the measure of an avg. season these days.

The reason they lost games last year was because they couldn't score in the red zone. Period! No TE and couldn't run inside the 20.

Coach
07-17-2007, 01:27 AM
Both of the Cards receivers only had 1 catch over 50 yds.

One averaged about 11 yds a catch and the other about 15 yds a catch. Wouldn't ya think that if they were sooo far behind in games as you have eluded to, the would have to throw deep a few times?


That is the definition of the prevent defense isn't it. Give up the underneath stuff, but don't give up the big play.

:anim-magicman:

DrunkHillbilly
07-17-2007, 01:16 PM
That is the definition of the prevent defense isn't it. Give up the underneath stuff, but don't give up the big play.

:anim-magicman:

So your telling me that every game that they lost, the other team went into prevent??? Even the games they only lost by 1,2,3 or 7 points???

Come on man, your smarter than that! :bash:

You have to know that most teams don't go into prevent unless they are up by atleast 2 TD's!

Chiefster
07-17-2007, 01:50 PM
Not upset at anyone here.

Upset with the organization!

Ahhh; you truly are a Chiefs fan. LOL!

Chiefster
07-17-2007, 01:59 PM
A good "O" line and a solid receiving core along with a QB that can lead all compliment one another. The fact that Arizona had 2 1000+ receivers and a poor "O" line did not change where they ended up last year. A football team is a sum of their parts, and the objective is not to gather stats to be quoted in an attempt to prove a point but to win enough games to get you to the SB and then win just one more. JMHO :)

DrunkHillbilly
07-17-2007, 03:32 PM
A good "O" line and a solid receiving core along with a QB that can lead all compliment one another. The fact that Arizona had 2 1000+ receivers and a poor "O" line did not change where they ended up last year. A football team is a sum of their parts, and the objective is not to gather stats to be quoted in an attempt to prove a point but to win enough games to get you to the SB and then win just one more. JMHO :)

Uhhhhhh, not sure what this means but I'm sure we are all in agreeance with your statement.

Further more, lets get one thing straight here, the Cheifs had a FAAAAAR better team than the Cardinals. The reason the Cardinals ended up where they did last years is because.....THEY END UP THERE EVERY YEAR!!!!!!

The whole point of this particular conversation is that it is possible to have a good receiving game with less than a perfect O line when you have more than 1 receiver to handle the duties. You can say all you want to about prevent D and giving you the underneath stuff but with out more than 1 compitant receiver, you don't even give yourself a chance to have success! I think the Chiefs proved that last season.

This is why I have been so hell bent on wanting the Chiefs to pick up a receiver in free agency for so long. Last year was about as bad as the O line has been in quite a few years and we still managed to have a better than average running game. With a couple of receivers to compliment the old man out there on an island by himself, we could have a better team and a better chance to have a better season therefore going futher in the playoffs.

Oh yea, and this is a fan site, not a football team, so the objective is to gather stats and quote them in an attempt to prove a point to people who disagree with what yours, mine or anybody elses point is.:biggrin:

chief31
07-17-2007, 09:19 PM
Uhhhhhh, not sure what this means but I'm sure we are all in agreeance with your statement.

Further more, lets get one thing straight here, the Cheifs had a FAAAAAR better team than the Cardinals. The reason the Cardinals ended up where they did last years is because.....THEY END UP THERE EVERY YEAR!!!!!!

The whole point of this particular conversation is that it is possible to have a good receiving game with less than a perfect O line when you have more than 1 receiver to handle the duties. You can say all you want to about prevent D and giving you the underneath stuff but with out more than 1 compitant receiver, you don't even give yourself a chance to have success! I think the Chiefs proved that last season.

This is why I have been so hell bent on wanting the Chiefs to pick up a receiver in free agency for so long. Last year was about as bad as the O line has been in quite a few years and we still managed to have a better than average running game. With a couple of receivers to compliment the old man out there on an island by himself, we could have a better team and a better chance to have a better season therefore going futher in the playoffs.

Oh yea, and this is a fan site, not a football team, so the objective is to gather stats and quote them in an attempt to prove a point to people who disagree with what yours, mine or anybody elses point is.:biggrin:

Well, it sounds like you value the wide reciever position, above all others. So then, Arozona should be the tops, in the league. Maybe Detroit? How about last years Raiders? New York Giants? Redskins? Bengals? Rams? Panthers? Dolphins? Each of those teams has high-caliber reciever talent and each of them, sat at home, for the playoffs.

While the Chiefs, Ravens, Chargers, Bears and Patriots managed more success, without having a top-flight pair of recievers.

DrunkHillbilly
07-17-2007, 09:26 PM
Well, it sounds like you value the wide reciever position, above all others. So then, Arozona should be the tops, in the league. Maybe Detroit? How about last years Raiders? New York Giants? Redskins? Bengals? Rams? Panthers? Dolphins? Each of those teams has high-caliber reciever talent and each of them, sat at home, for the playoffs.

While the Chiefs, Ravens, Chargers, Bears and Patriots managed more success, without having a top-flight pair of recievers.

Be realistic here bud! I'm trying to say that with the talent the Chiefs have at other positions, including O line,(hence the Cardinals) with a little help at the receiver position would have and will give them a better chance at winning more games. And by the way, the teams you mentioned that supposedly had no WR's, they all had better # 2's and 3's than Dante Hall and Sammie Parker!!

chief31
07-17-2007, 09:41 PM
Be realistic here bud! I'm trying to say that with the talent the Chiefs have at other positions, including O line,(hence the Cardinals) with a little help at the receiver position would have and will give them a better chance at winning more games. And by the way, the teams you mentioned that supposedly had no WR's, they all had better # 2's and 3's than Dante Hall and Sammie Parker!!

Well, of corse upgrading talent, at that position would help. As it would, at any position. It's your exaggerations that compelled me to point-out what you were saying.

DrunkHillbilly
07-17-2007, 09:47 PM
Well, of corse upgrading talent, at that position would help. As it would, at any position. It's your exaggerations that compelled me to point-out what you were saying.

What exaggerations?

chief31
07-17-2007, 09:51 PM
with out more than 1 compitant receiver, you don't even give yourself a chance to have success!


What exaggerations?

This is the one, in particular, that I was responding to.

DrunkHillbilly
07-17-2007, 09:53 PM
You think this is an exaggeration?????? I guess you had more faith in Hall and Parker than I!

Chiefster
07-17-2007, 10:55 PM
Well, it sounds like you value the wide reciever position, above all others. So then, Arozona should be the tops, in the league. Maybe Detroit? How about last years Raiders? New York Giants? Redskins? Bengals? Rams? Panthers? Dolphins? Each of those teams has high-caliber reciever talent and each of them, sat at home, for the playoffs.

While the Chiefs, Ravens, Chargers, Bears and Patriots managed more success, without having a top-flight pair of recievers.

Yup!

I feel like the "taste great - less filling" guy. :D

Canada
07-17-2007, 11:00 PM
Yup!

I feel like the "taste great - less filling" guy. :D

Thanx...now i gotta go out and get beer.:iamwithstupid:

Chiefster
07-17-2007, 11:03 PM
Thanx...now i gotta go out and get beer.:iamwithstupid:


Hehehehe!! Hey; it's what I do best.

Canada
07-17-2007, 11:05 PM
And you do it so well. It usually takes a lot of convincing to get me to drink a beer!

Chiefster
07-17-2007, 11:11 PM
And you do it so well. It usually takes a lot of convincing to get me to drink a beer!


LOL!!!

Yeah kinda like celebrating Arbor Day eh?

DrunkHillbilly
07-17-2007, 11:11 PM
Yup!

I feel like the "taste great - less filling" guy. :D

Me too!!! What else can we argue about??:pirate2:

Chiefster
07-17-2007, 11:13 PM
Me too!!! What else can we argue about??:pirate2:


LOL!!!

If a tree fell in the woods and no one's there to hear it.....

Canada
07-17-2007, 11:14 PM
...then what??

Chiefster
07-17-2007, 11:17 PM
...then what??


...doeas it make a noise?

Canada
07-17-2007, 11:18 PM
yes it does

Chiefster
07-17-2007, 11:20 PM
yes it does

How do you know? Isn't sound defined by the human brain as perceived through the ears?

DrunkHillbilly
07-17-2007, 11:25 PM
yes it does

I disagree damnit!!!!:character00265: :character00265:

Chiefster
07-17-2007, 11:26 PM
I disagree damnit!!!!:character00265: :character00265:

Why???
lol!!!

DrunkHillbilly
07-17-2007, 11:28 PM
Because!! What if I'm deaf? How do I know your signing me the truth about it making a sound?

Chiefster
07-17-2007, 11:28 PM
Because!! What if I'm deaf? How do I know your signing me the truth about it making a sound?


You don't. :p

Canada
07-17-2007, 11:30 PM
Because!! What if I'm deaf? How do I know your signing me the truth about it making a sound?

You are way to cute to lie to.:character00100:

jpkpohl
07-24-2007, 03:38 PM
Just pay him $ 20 million in guaranteed money, and be done with it. He still has many things that he can do, and I would love that to be with the Chiefs, and no one else.

Canada
07-24-2007, 03:59 PM
How do you know? Isn't sound defined by the human brain as perceived through the ears?

No, If I am talking to a deaf guy, am I still making noise?

Chiefster
07-24-2007, 05:25 PM
No[/b], If I am talking to a deaf guy, am I still making noise?


...To you because you are hearing the noise you make as preceived by your brain through your ears, but not to him.

Chiefster
07-24-2007, 05:29 PM
Just pay him $ 20 million in guaranteed money, and be done with it. He still has many things that he can do, and I would love that to be with the Chiefs, and no one else.

There are wrose solutions; however if King Carl is not going to budge and niether is LJ, then get some value for the guy.

Canada
07-24-2007, 09:42 PM
So,,,what is this thread about because I will pay LJ $37.00 ti run the ball, shut up and like it!! And noise is the manipulation of sound waves. They are still there even if they are not received by a human ear. If you don't see it, is there still light?

Chiefster
07-24-2007, 10:35 PM
So,,,what is this thread about because I will pay LJ $37.00 ti run the ball, shut up and like it!! And noise is the manipulation of sound waves. They are still there even if they are not received by a human ear. If you don't see it, is there still light?

Good question? :D

stlchief
07-24-2007, 10:45 PM
There are wrose solutions; however if King Carl is not going to budge and niether is LJ, then get some value for the guy.


AMEN! We get another first rounder plus a later, he gets his $.

Chiefster
07-25-2007, 12:23 AM
AMEN! We get another first rounder plus a later, he gets his $.


Exactly! :sign0156:

chief31
10-08-2007, 10:33 AM
So am I hearing that some of you don't think LJ is worth big money? It must be because of his moods because you surely can't complain about his stats!

Mmmmmmmmmmm Hmmmmmmmm.



Cadillac numbers huh? How much money you got??? Mark my words..He will have more attempts, yds, recving yds, and td's than Cadillac!!!



Well, lucky for you, Cadillac got injured. Hunh? :D


When it comes to balance, everyone knows you have to have offense and defense!!!!

However, balance within the OFFENSE is far more important!

Oooo. Sorry for embarrassing you, by bringing up this quote. :lol: I must have missed this one, the first time around.

sling58
10-08-2007, 10:34 AM
I feel an argument coming,

lol.

chief31
04-04-2008, 02:44 PM
You guys have been tellin me that the O line is the most important thing for the offense and QB. What gives???

The Cardinals O line sucked period!!! Pass, run, crawl, everything!!! Worst at all of it in the league!

Trust me, I watched every game!

Just thought I would rehash a bit...

The 2006 Arizona Cardinals' offensive line allowed a sack once, per 15.5 passing attempts. Twelve teams were better. But 19 teams were worse.

The worst in the league was Oakland, who permitted a sack once, per 6.7 passing attempts.

So, while the Cardinals' run-blocking was aweful, (3.2 YPC, 32nd in the NFL) that unit was above average in sacks per passing attempt. (13th best in the NFL.)

Seems like I read that here somewhere...

Oh, here it is...




The Cardinals O-line is a bad run-blocking group, but a pretty good pass-blocking group.

Kinda makes it hard for me to "trust" you, DH. :lol:

Sorry. The site has just been way too friendly lately. :D

hermhater
04-04-2008, 03:24 PM
I feel an argument coming,

lol.

You saw this coming from 6 months ago?

Wow you must be a fortune teller or something sling!

You called it!

:bananen_smilies046:

Chiefster
04-10-2008, 07:47 AM
You saw this coming from 6 months ago?

Wow you must be a fortune teller or something sling!

You called it!

:bananen_smilies046:

:iamwithstupid:Ummmmmmmmmmm, he posted that on 10-08-2007 dude.:lol:

hermhater
04-10-2008, 02:23 PM
I feel an argument coming,

lol.


Just thought I would rehash a bit...

The 2006 Arizona Cardinals' offensive line allowed a sack once, per 15.5 passing attempts. Twelve teams were better. But 19 teams were worse.

The worst in the league was Oakland, who permitted a sack once, per 6.7 passing attempts.

So, while the Cardinals' run-blocking was aweful, (3.2 YPC, 32nd in the NFL) that unit was above average in sacks per passing attempt. (13th best in the NFL.)

Seems like I read that here somewhere...

Oh, here it is...



Kinda makes it hard for me to "trust" you, DH. :lol:

Sorry. The site has just been way too friendly lately. :D


You saw this coming from 6 months ago?

Wow you must be a fortune teller or something sling!

You called it!

:bananen_smilies046:


:iamwithstupid:Ummmmmmmmmmm, he posted that on 10-08-2007 dude.:lol:

Yeah he posted that he saw an argument coming in October of last year, and 6 months later chief31 argued about it.

I will not disagree with you about me being stupid Chiefster (we all knew that already:biggrin:)! :yahoo:

:11:

Chiefster
04-12-2008, 01:14 AM
Yeah he posted that he saw an argument coming in October of last year, and 6 months later chief31 argued about it.

I will not disagree with you about me being stupid Chiefster (we all knew that already:biggrin:)! :yahoo:

:11:

:lol: :lol: :lol: