PDA

View Full Version : The Ring



Canada
06-14-2007, 03:58 PM
Well Chief31...I'm waiting!! :)

Chiefster
06-14-2007, 08:48 PM
Ding, ding, ding, ding!!!!

...Ladies and Gentles; LLLLEEEEEEEETTS GET READY TO RRRRRRRRRRRRRUUMBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLE!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! :D

Coach
06-14-2007, 10:54 PM
What are we rumblin' about?

Chiefster
06-14-2007, 11:43 PM
What are we rumblin' about?


LOL!!

Nothin really; Canada and Chief31 had quite the lively debate in a thread that timbok, of all people, started.

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/showthread.php?t=529&page=2

Chiefster
06-15-2007, 12:13 AM
YouTube - Fight Night -- Michael Buffer "Let's Get Ready To Rumble" Int

Michael Buffer

chief31
06-15-2007, 07:09 AM
Wouldn't we all. I just think we should stop attacking how poor our offence is before they have set foot on the field. The offence we have just finished minicamp. The rookies and the vets pretty much just met. There are some questions on the offence but why does it have to be negative all the time. Has anyoneever wondered how good this team will be if Tony G puts up pro bowl numbers (again) and LJ goes for 1750 yards (again) and Priest comes back and cathes 85 passes out of the backfield and the offensive line that surprises everyone...and we have the defence we all expect. That is the Chiefs team that I will be watching this season. If we end up 6-10 then I will at least know what I am complaining about.


DING,DING!!!!

I'm not about saying that our offense is bad. What I have been complaining about, are the personell moves, that have been made, during this offseason. Moves that, I fear, will diminish our offensive production.

I like how the defense is taking shape. I don't expect Herm to deliver a defense, as dominant as what the Steelers, Ravens, or Bears have enjoyed, recently, though I do expect we will rank, in the top five, defensively, soon.

Given such a defense, combined with the lack-lustre offense that Herm has shown the ability to put on the field, I would never expect to see the Chiefs win a Super Bowl. Obviously, it would be possible, just unlikely. When the Ravens won it, their defense was considered among the best ever assembled. And, they were still, a tremendous underdog, at the beginning of the playoffs. They overachieved, immensely. Even the Steelers, who had more offensive production than any Herm offense, had to "walk on water" to win it all.

Maybe it's just me, but I kinda like being a "front-runner". If you look at the history, of the NFL, those "front-runners" tend to win more Super Bowls, than the underdogs do.

Fact is, changing from the Vermiel offense, one of the most prolific offenses ever fielded, is like going to the Ravens and deciding that you need to change-up the defense. Not that it has all been Hermies fault. I realize that retirement and a lack of Vermiel-offense knowledge, contributes. So, while Herm appears to recieve the majority of my ire, on the situation, he is not alone, on my list.

So, basically, I know what I am complaining about. And I think you do too.

Canada
06-15-2007, 12:03 PM
DING,DING!!!!

I'm not about saying that our offense is bad. What I have been complaining about, are the personell moves, that have been made, during this offseason. Moves that, I fear, will diminish our offensive production.

I like how the defense is taking shape. I don't expect Herm to deliver a defense, as dominant as what the Steelers, Ravens, or Bears have enjoyed, recently, though I do expect we will rank, in the top five, defensively, soon.

Given such a defense, combined with the lack-lustre offense that Herm has shown the ability to put on the field, I would never expect to see the Chiefs win a Super Bowl. Obviously, it would be possible, just unlikely. When the Ravens won it, their defense was considered among the best ever assembled. And, they were still, a tremendous underdog, at the beginning of the playoffs. They overachieved, immensely. Even the Steelers, who had more offensive production than any Herm offense, had to "walk on water" to win it all.

Maybe it's just me, but I kinda like being a "front-runner". If you look at the history, of the NFL, those "front-runners" tend to win more Super Bowls, than the underdogs do.

Fact is, changing from the Vermiel offense, one of the most prolific offenses ever fielded, is like going to the Ravens and deciding that you need to change-up the defense. Not that it has all been Hermies fault. I realize that retirement and a lack of Vermiel-offense knowledge, contributes. So, while Herm appears to recieve the majority of my ire, on the situation, he is not alone, on my list.

So, basically, I know what I am complaining about. And I think you do too.

So is the offence bad or are they good. You seem to have two points of view depending on what fits you argument at the time. Last time I checked the offence on the field was Vermeils offence. Herm inheirited last years team. There were not a lot of changes made, and Solari was calling the plays was he not? Old offensive line coach that wants to run the ball a lot? I know that it is Herm's gameplan but it was Vermeils offence on the field last year that was "lack lustre" I agree that maybe we could have done more as far as the personnel on the O-line, but then we would be talking about how we did not address the D-line or the WR position. I did not get to see the draft this year, but who were the available O-linemen in the 23rd spot? There is no need to waste a pick on a player who is no good just to say that we plugged a hole. Maybe there was no talent there. (again I did not get to see the draft so I do not know) As far as changing the Vermeil offence (like the Ravens defence), if we kept all those guys together we would still be looking at a crap defence for another year, hoping to outscore everyone....which obviously did not work. Unfortunately replacing Roaf and Shilds is not an easy task, but maybe McIntosh will be the new Roaf in town. It is not like our line has never played good foorball before. I am still saying that I am going to give this team a chance to show what they can do before I write them off for the season.

Chiefster
06-15-2007, 03:41 PM
Actually, if I remember correctly, the top notch "O" lineman was still there into the second and third rounds of the of the draft. Of course I could be mistaken.

Canada
06-15-2007, 04:10 PM
Actually, if I remember correctly, the top notch "O" lineman was still there into the second and third rounds of the of the draft. Of course I could be mistaken.

If that is the case then i agree we should have made some better choices, but then maybe our defensive line is a little weaker. I just wish we could have gotten more kickers. :)

Chiefster
06-15-2007, 04:38 PM
If that is the case then i agree we should have made some better choices, but then maybe our defensive line is a little weaker. I just wish we could have gotten more kickers. :)

ROFL!! Exactly! It's all Carls fault!!!!!!! :p



Heaven forbid we actually field a complete, balanced team.


I wonder what :fatlock: take on this would be. LOL!

chief31
06-15-2007, 09:23 PM
So is the offence bad or are they good. You seem to have two points of view depending on what fits you argument at the time.

Last time I checked the offence on the field was Vermeils offence. Herm inheirited last years team. There were not a lot of changes made, and Solari was calling the plays was he not? Old offensive line coach that wants to run the ball a lot? I know that it is Herm's gameplan but it was Vermeils offence on the field last year that was "lack lustre" I agree that maybe we could have done more as far as the personnel on the O-line, but then we would be talking about how we did not address the D-line or the WR position. I did not get to see the draft this year, but who were the available O-linemen in the 23rd spot? There is no need to waste a pick on a player who is no good just to say that we plugged a hole. Maybe there was no talent there. (again I did not get to see the draft so I do not know) As far as changing the Vermeil offence (like the Ravens defence), if we kept all those guys together we would still be looking at a crap defence for another year, hoping to outscore everyone....which obviously did not work. Unfortunately replacing Roaf and Shilds is not an easy task, but maybe McIntosh will be the new Roaf in town. It is not like our line has never played good foorball before. I am still saying that I am going to give this team a chance to show what they can do before I write them off for the season.

Having not seen the offense, how would wnyone say that they are bad? Having said that...They suck!!! J/K. I fully expect them to be an extremely average offense. That is my opinion, of what will be. The fact that I HOPE that they will pull it together and find success, is not a contradiction.

The last time you checked, was in 2005. The '06 offense was certainly not the same. There were some vague, remaining shadows of it, but it was, certainly not, the same offense. Gone, were the sweeps, with traps and three pulling O-linemen. I failed to notice the fake end-around. I didn't see very much of the pre-snap shifts. All of these things are staples of the Vermiel offense. That was not the same offense.

As far as drafting offensive linemen. At every selection, the Chiefs made, there were O-linemen available, who warranted being selected, by the Chiefs.
It is my belief, based on past examples, that Herm Edwards does not covet offensive linemen, the way most head coaches have learned to do. Therefore, he likely had every offensive lineman, in the draft, rated lower than on most other teams' boards.

I'm not certain what "guys" you were talking about "kepping together", but personell,( with the exception of Roaf/Black) wasn't the big problem, last season.

Macintosh is never going to be anything like Willie Roaf. I'm not saying that he won't become servicable, or even pretty good, (long-shot) but that it would be a much more fair comparison, to use Jordan Black, side by side, with Macintosh.

Lastly, I have yet to "write-off" the Houston Texans, let alone, my own, beloved, Chiefs. Yes, my expectations are low. My hope stays high, no matter how dim things may appear.

chief31
06-15-2007, 09:33 PM
If that is the case then i agree we should have made some better choices, but then maybe our defensive line is a little weaker. I just wish we could have gotten more kickers. :)

This brings me to a complaint that I haven't aired yet. How on Earth did Alan Branch slip to the second round? This was the top prospect at defensive tackle, in this seasons draft. OT Joe Staley was projected to go, in the second half, of the first round, but Branch was projected as a top ten draft pick, by the entire world.

Now, I like Tyler and have decided to bite my tongue and give Mcbride a fair chance, but Alan Branch was a monster, for Michigan. He and Okoye were "head and shoulders" above the rest of the DT class.

I would also like to agree with you, Canada, about not having drafted a couple more kickers. What were we thinking?!?! We wasted sooo many picks, on "position players". It's just a shame.

Chiefster
06-15-2007, 09:36 PM
Ding, ding!! End of round one. :D

Chiefster
06-15-2007, 09:39 PM
Quick Chief31 post again; you are on the dreaded post number 666! :p

wolfpack
06-17-2007, 09:59 AM
the offense,hummm dickie vs hermmie,,, like use to driving a vette and being forced to drive a vw beetle. sooner or latter,probably alot latter, one gettes use to it. attack by scoring touchdowns or attck by scoring fieldgoals.

Chiefster
06-17-2007, 10:15 AM
the offense,hummm dickie vs hermmie,,, like use to driving a vette and being forced to drive a vw beetle. sooner or latter,probably alot latter, one gettes use to it. attack by scoring touchdowns or attck by scoring fieldgoals.

To be a Super Bowl contender both sides of the ball must be developed; you can't build an offense and neglect the defense and vise versa, and it's going to take more then a couple of seasons. This was really my only complaint of the Vermeil era; it was also my "chief" complaint of the Schottenheimer era as well.

wolfpack
06-17-2007, 10:21 AM
To be a Super Bowl contender both sides of the ball must be developed; you can't build an offense and neglect the defense and vise versa, and it's going to take more then a couple of seasons. This was really my only complaint of the Vermeil era; it was also my "chief" complaint of the Schottenheimer era as well.

one thing that stands out about the two oppsite ways of coaching, the both had the same front office. maybe, that is the root of the problem.

Chiefster
06-17-2007, 11:01 AM
one thing that stands out about the two oppsite ways of coaching, the both had the same front office. maybe, that is the root of the problem.

I have said in the past that the one common denominator in the past 17, or so, years of Peterson's five year plan to get to the Super Bowl has been the retention of Carl himself.

chief31
06-17-2007, 04:54 PM
one thing that stands out about the two oppsite ways of coaching, the both had the same front office. maybe, that is the root of the problem.

In C.P.s defense, he has given us some teams, that were capable of going to the Super Bowl and even winning it. Underachieving, in the playoffs, is not something that can be blamed on a GM. His biggest fault has been in his commitment to his head coaches. IMHO.

Chiefster
06-17-2007, 11:46 PM
In C.P.s defense, he has given us some teams, that were capable of going to the Super Bowl and even winning it. Underachieving, in the playoffs, is not something that can be blamed on a GM. His biggest fault has been in his commitment to his head coaches. IMHO.


Yup; it is time for Clark Hunt to as CP says: "Move in a different direction" in the GM department IMO. No other team in the NFL would have held on to the guy as long as the Chiefs have.

Guru
06-19-2007, 05:48 AM
To be a Super Bowl contender both sides of the ball must be developed; you can't build an offense and neglect the defense and vise versa, and it's going to take more then a couple of seasons. This was really my only complaint of the Vermeil era; it was also my "chief" complaint of the Schottenheimer era as well.

Maybe you should look at the 2000 Ravens again.

Canada
06-19-2007, 09:20 AM
The 2000 Ravens were the 14th ranked offence in the league. We were the 32nd ranked defence for how long? They were still a somewhat balanced team. Isn't that the year that Jamal Lewis ran for over 2000 yrds as well?

chief31
06-19-2007, 10:05 AM
The 2000 Ravens were the 14th ranked offence in the league. We were the 32nd ranked defence for how long? They were still a somewhat balanced team. Isn't that the year that Jamal Lewis ran for over 2000 yrds as well?

That was a team that won a Super Bowl with one side of the ball. You could show any numbers, that you like, Fact is, the defense was so good, that they gave their offense more possessions, to gain a few more yards. In the postseason, the defense, combined with their special teams, scored more points, than their offense did.

The Ravens were, by far, the most one-sided team, that I have ever seen win a Super Bowl.

Canada
06-19-2007, 11:50 AM
I am not denying that the were a very defensive team, but the fact remains that they had an offence ranked in the top half of the league. If the Chiefs in the Vermeil era had a top half ranked defence then we would have won more games (playoff). If that Ravens offence had been ranked 32nd, they would not have won the superbowl.

Chiefster
06-19-2007, 12:21 PM
Maybe you should look at the 2000 Ravens again.

I have reiterated before that the 2000 Ravens are a marked exception.

Canada
06-19-2007, 01:09 PM
That was a team that won a Super Bowl with one side of the ball. You could show any numbers, that you like, Fact is, the defense was so good, that they gave their offense more possessions, to gain a few more yards. In the postseason, the defense, combined with their special teams, scored more points, than their offense did.

The Ravens were, by far, the most one-sided team, that I have ever seen win a Super Bowl.

I do agree with you there, but they still had some balance. And the Tampa Bay Bucaneer were pretty much the same.

Chiefster
06-19-2007, 07:13 PM
I was pretty much under the impression that the Super Bowl winners were the one team that paid the refs the most. :p
j/k

chief31
06-20-2007, 12:56 AM
I was pretty much under the impression that the Super Bowl winners were the one team that paid the refs the most. :p
j/k
The only team that I know of, to have accomplished a Super Bowl victory, in that way, was the Cows Vs the Steelers.

Chiefster
06-20-2007, 01:15 AM
The only team that I know of, to have accomplished a Super Bowl victory, in that way, was the Cows Vs the Steelers.


Heck; I don't even remember which SB that was.