Mock #1 1/24/2011

**stevefuller** · 01-24-2011, 09:30 PM

1st)Nate Solder-OT
This completes o-line,, as we have signed Logan Mankins-LG allowing us to slide B Waters to center.
Alberts/Mankins/Waters/Lilja/Solder

2nd)Randall Cobb-WR
This completes rebuild receiving corps, as we have, signed Santana Moss-WR to go along with D-Bowe/McCluster/Moss/Cobb/Young

3rd)Titus Young-WR
5'11" 178 sub 4.4

4th)Sione Fua-NT
5th)Brandon Fusco-C
5th)Greg Romeus-OLB
6th)Ricky Stanzi-QB
7th)Dion Lewis-RB
7th)Matt Szczur-WR

**chief31** · 02-01-2011, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by brdempsey69

No, they weren't poor. Just efficient enough. They did play against pretty good Defenses, as well. The Chiefs teams of '92, '95 and '97 were poor.

Never heard of a team not trying for an extra point, except when the score a TD in overtime.

Not in the AFC championship game against the Raiders. They hit a 96-yard TD pass in that game that was the games only TD. Like I've said already, their Offense put points on the board when it was needed. Plus, they had a 100 yard rusher in 2 of those games. The Chiefs squads in '92, '95, and '97 didn't.

How about the 0, 7 , and 10 points scored by the Chiefs '92, '95, and '97 squads. That's barely over 5 points per game. How many wins? Zero. That's inept.

No, I prefer my own, regardless if anyone chooses to agree with it or not.

I am done.

If having the worst offense in the playoff, and the best defense is your idea of balance, then it is useless to bother.

You don't care what the words you use actually mean. So you may actually be saying that that offense was bad, but just don't know how to properly use the words.

And it doesn't make any sense to debate with someone who is going to use a made-up language.

**brdempsey69** · 02-02-2011, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by chief31

I am done.

If having the worst offense in the playoff, and the best defense is your idea of balance, then it is useless to bother.

You are referring to "Worst Offense" in the form of average yards per game, but you have to consider they played 4 postseason games & against some good Defenses. Okay, so the Broncos averaged more yards per game in that one game they played against the Ravens & lost, than the Ravens did in 4 games in that same post-season.

You know what that proves? It proves the saying used by a one of Len Dawson's greatest rival QB's back when Lenny was playing -- former Raiders QB Daryle Lamonica:

"It's not statistics that count, it's points on the scoreboard"

The Ravens Offense did put the points on the board when they needed them. The average yards per game does not negate that fact.

Originally Posted by chief31

You don't care what the words you use actually mean. So you may actually be saying that that offense was bad, but just don't know how to properly use the words.

I never said they were bad or inept. I've said all along that they were efficient & put points on the board when it was needed. Were they spectacular? No. And that's not surprising, given they played some decent Defenses in that post season run. But they did a good job taking care of the ball and not repeatedly turning it over in their own territory. And no way do they win the SB if they go 3 and out every time.

Originally Posted by chief31

And it doesn't make any sense to debate with someone who is going to use a made-up language.

LOL, you can call it what you want, but my analysis still stands. And that is that you have to have both Offense and Defense to get to the SB and win it. Granted, one platoon may be better than the other, but you have be efficient to a degree on both sides ... in other words some semblance of BALANCE -- not totally one dimensional -- as was the case with the '92, '95, '97 & 2003 Chiefs squads.

What do you suppose would have happened if the 2003 Chiefs Squad would have had the Defense from '95 or '97 playing with that 2003 Offense, instead of the 2003 Defense that completely collapsed late in the season and made them one-dimensional heading into the post season? Or if Joe Montana had been able to stick around and QB those '95 and '97 squads? I'll leave you to conjecture that.

**Ryfo18** · 02-02-2011, 01:19 AM

I think we need a thread: "How the 2000 Ravens won the Super Bowl and why the Chiefs 90's teams had no chance."

**brdempsey69** · 02-02-2011, 02:04 AM

Originally Posted by Ryfo18

I think we need a thread: "How the 2000 Ravens won the Super Bowl and why the Chiefs 90's teams had no chance."

Hey, I tried to go back on topic, and will do so again. Solder is listed as the top pick by the thread starter. I say no, not at #21 because he's not a finished product by any means, he's still a work in progress. But at #55 in the 2nd round, I'd take a stab at him.

**Three7s** · 02-02-2011, 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by chief31

I am done.

If having the worst offense in the playoff, and the best defense is your idea of balance, then it is useless to bother.

You don't care what the words you use actually mean. So you may actually be saying that that offense was bad, but just don't know how to properly use the words.

And it doesn't make any sense to debate with someone who is going to use a made-up language.

Good for you. I figured out pretty quickly that dempsey is hell-bent on his opinion and will not waiver one bit. I have no doubts that brdempsey is a good person and a passionate football fan, it's just pointless to continue on a hapless debate.

As for my take on the Ravens offense of 2000, I agree with chief31 completely. ANY offense can score at times, even the freaking Chiefs of 2007-2009. Will they win with that kind of offense? Not without the Ravens defense.

**brdempsey69** · 02-02-2011, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by Three7s

Good for you. I figured out pretty quickly that dempsey is hell-bent on his opinion and will not waiver one bit. I have no doubts that brdempsey is a good person and a passionate football fan, it's just pointless to continue on a hapless debate.

And that's where you got it all wrong. I didn't just give an opinion, I provided examples time and again to back it up.

Originally Posted by Three7s

As for my take on the Ravens offense of 2000, I agree with chief31 completely. ANY offense can score at times, even the freaking Chiefs of 2007-2009. Will they win with that kind of offense? Not without the Ravens defense.

Nobody said they could have won the SB in 2000 without that great Defense. What was said was: Even with that great Defense, they couldn't have done it without some semblance of Offense.

**chief31** · 02-02-2011, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Three7s

Good for you. I figured out pretty quickly that dempsey is hell-bent on his opinion and will not waiver one bit. I have no doubts that brdempsey is a good person and a passionate football fan, it's just pointless to continue on a hapless debate.

As for my take on the Ravens offense of 2000, I agree with chief31 completely. ANY offense can score at times, even the freaking Chiefs of 2007-2009. Will they win with that kind of offense? Not without the Ravens defense.

Yeah. I like him. I even agree with just about all of his opinions about needing to be a balanced team. As well as the importance of a LOT over a Safety.

But there is no sense in debating someone who is going to make up definitions for words, just to not admit misspeaking.

**Boxermm187** · 02-02-2011, 01:00 PM

cheers for the present and future!!!!!!!! the past is the past. GO CHIEFS!!!

A lot of GM's and not enough fans!
In Scott Pioli we trust!

**brdempsey69** · 02-02-2011, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by chief31

Yeah. I like him. I even agree with just about all of his opinions about needing to be a balanced team. As well as the importance of a LOT over a Safety.

But there is no sense in debating someone who is going to make up definitions for words, just to not admit misspeaking.

LOL, I didn't know there was a pre-requisite to conform to grammar police policies on this forum. I don't know what I was thinking. What's next? Do I have to go before a judge and have the judge say " your guilty of misspeaking -- so bayliff, wack his pee-pee".

Sorry, but I spelled it out time and again why I defined things the way I did & my analysis still stands, regardless if one likes it or not. You can call it misspeaking if it makes you feel better, but I made it quite clear where I was coming from & I stand by it.

**chief31** · 02-02-2011, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by brdempsey69

LOL, I didn't know there was a pre-requisite to conform to grammar police policies on this forum. I don't know what I was thinking. What's next? Do I have to go before a judge and have the judge say " your guilty of misspeaking -- so bayliff, wack his pee-pee".

Sorry, but I spelled it out time and again why I defined things the way I did & my analysis still stands, regardless if one likes it or not. You can call it misspeaking if it makes you feel better, but I made it quite clear where I was coming from & I stand by it.

Yeah, I get it. Your idea of balance is winning, regardless of what the word balance means.

Good for you.