Elway's a fool for signing some FA's he has...

[Connie Jo]

Yep, that's right. I think Elway's a fool for signing Ware and Talib in particular. I'm not alone, several pro analyst articles I've read have more or less said the same...the signings were "risky".

I don't know why some Chiefs fans are worried and think the donkey signings were so great. Below is a quote from one pro analyst:

"Ware was just released by the Dallas Cowboys Tuesday afternoon at the official start of the NFL free-agent period: the team didn't want to carry his $16 million salary cap figure for the 2014 season. Ware turns 32 before the start of the season, was hampered by quad injuries and finished with a career low six sacks in a career low 13 games."

I don't know why some think the signing of Talib was all that great, either. The quote below is from another NFL pro analyst giving thoughts on the donkey's latest signings:

"Talib is a risk, too. He's had hip injuries and also incurred some off field issues, which ran him out of Tampa Bay just a few years ago. Plus, last we saw of him he was being taken out in the playoff game by the Bronco' Wes Welker on a play Bill Belichick called one of the dirtiest he had ever seen. Clearly, Talib has forgotten, or was charmed by dollar signs, whatever."

The donkey's signed two injury prone aging players. One of which has had off field issues, too, and another coming off his worst career year ever, and they spent $87 million to sign those two "risky" players. I don't call that making "great" moves on Elway's part, rather, call it foolish.

Elway's ego has more to do with who he's signing than any other factor. He's trying to make a media splash because his ego LOVES the attention, but he's also trying to redeem himself & the franchise after their pathetic humiliating Super Bowl loss. He's really not that smart of a GM.

He's been signing aging injury prone players, including Manning, at the end of their careers chasing one Super Bowl win, that's it. He's trying to build a one year SB winning team. He's not preparing for the future, nor for a team that can compete consistently for consecutive seasons. Hey, maybe it's worth it to some, but I'd rather have a wise GM like Dorsey, who builds more through the draft, homegrown young and healthy players who can compete for years to come, and win consistently and for more than one season. I want a Dorsey & Reid dynasty, like Green Bay & the Pats built...not a one year contender.

[Mongo]

The ignorance is clearly on your side. Flexible TV scheduling has nothing to do with a team finishing 13-3, 12-4, and 13-3 getting ridiculously easy schedules the next year to start their seasons. What you're calling an "irrational belief" is only telling me that your mind is being blinded somehow to the very real possibilities of it. I just looked at the 2013 schedule and every team that won their division in 2012 had to play an opponent in their park that had also been in postseason in 2012 within the first 6 games of their schedule, except the Donkeys. So much for the BS flexible TV scheduling theory that you're trying to sell me.



And be sure to have your mommy give you a Baby-Pat-A-Burp doll to put on your shoulder, so that can cry on it's shoulder, because you can't stomach somebody telling like it is.

When someone actually tells me "how it is" I'll give Mom a call if I can't. Pretty sure you haven't. Not that I really care about events from 1997. I just find ridiculous conspiracy theories amusing.

[brdempsey69]

While I agree with Brdempsey in large part about Denvers O line and cap issues I think he's a bit overboard with the schedule thing.

Denver got the schedule they did because that's just how it worked out. They got an easy schedule because the teams they happened to be playing in the division matchups favored the AFC west over the NFC east. The NFL can't be for sure what teams are going to be good any given year so it's really tough for them to stack the deck with the schedule. And Denver did open with the Super Bowl champs at home last year. And the Ravens were a solid team in the playoff hunt until the end of the season. So one this issue I don't think it's Denver getting special treatment from the league it just worked out how it did.

Matt, read this again, carefully:

I just looked at the 2013 schedule and every team that won their division in 2012 had to play an opponent in their park that had also been in postseason in 2012 within the first 6 games of their schedule, except the Donkeys.

It does raise the question as to why the Donks were the exception, now doesn't it? You yourself had said something to the effect that the Ravens should have been hosting that game regarding the Donks instead of the other way around. You yourself was the first one on these forums to point out the multiple officiating gaffs regarding the Donkeys in their game against Dallas. And you didn't see me saying you were going overboard.

Do note that the Donks had to play in ATL and NE in 2012, within their first 6 games and lost and then they did go on a 11 game winning streak to capture home-field advantage. Okay, no problem, they earned it outright and there weren't any discussions about officiating gaffs occurring in their favor during the 2012 season -- because it wasn't happening. But, once the playoffs started, what happened? One and done, just like 1996 when the Donks went 13-3 and had home-field advantage, only to have the Jags beat them in the opening round. The '96 Donks did play a road game against a team that made the playoffs the year before -- the Chiefs and lost.

I've never said the league was conspiring to favor the Donks by giving them an easy schedule to start the season in '97, '98, and 2013 ( maybe they did, maybe they didn't -- nobody here can truthfully say they know for certain ), but the fact is the Donks did get easy schedules to start all three of those seasons and going into those seasons one could easily see they were VERY likely going to get off fast starts, which raises the obvious question regarding their schedules -- WHY? Why no games in an opponents park that had made the playoffs the season before when it's quite routine for teams that win their division the year before to have to play a road game against an opponent that had made the post-season the previous year ( very rare that they don't )?

When someone actually tells me "how it is" I'll give Mom a call if I can't. Pretty sure you haven't. Not that I really care about events from 1997. I just find ridiculous conspiracy theories amusing.

I find your stupid theories to support your argument ( TV flexible scheduling) even more amusing. I have told like it was. I stated to the effect that if one believes that the league office is without spot or blemish and 100% honest in everything they do, then one is a naive idiot and you've proven just that to be so.

[matthewschiefs]

Matt, read this again, carefully:



It does raise the question as to why the Donks were the exception, now doesn't it? You yourself had said something to the effect that the Ravens should have been hosting that game regarding the Donks instead of the other way around. You yourself was the first one on these forums to point out the multiple officiating gaffs regarding the Donkeys in their game against Dallas. And you didn't see me saying you were going overboard.

Do note that the Donks had to play in ATL and NE in 2012, within their first 6 games and lost and then they did go on a 11 game winning streak to capture home-field advantage. Okay, no problem, they earned it outright and there weren't any discussions about officiating gaffs occurring in their favor during the 2012 season -- because it wasn't happening. But, once the playoffs started, what happened? One and done, just like 1996 when the Donks went 13-3 and had home-field advantage, only to have the Jags beat them in the opening round. The '96 Donks did play a road game against a team that made the playoffs the year before -- the Chiefs and lost.

I've never said the league was conspiring to favor the Donks by giving them an easy schedule to start the season in '97, '98, and 2013 ( maybe they did, maybe they didn't -- nobody here can truthfully say they know for certain ), but the fact is the Donks did get easy schedules to start all three of those seasons and going into those seasons one could easily see they were VERY likely going to get off fast starts, which raises the obvious question regarding their schedules -- WHY? Why no games in an opponents park that had made the playoffs the season before when it's quite routine for teams that win their division the year before to have to play a road game against an opponent that had made the post-season the previous year ( very rare that they don't )?

I understood what you were saying I guess it's a matter of what do you put more stock in a division title or a super bowl title. IMO playing the defending super champs is right up there with a division champ. If you think otherwise then I will just agree to disagree there. I did think that the Ravens should have hosted the opener and still think it's silly that they didn't since they had a ball park full of people watching it on the big screen. But the Ravens would have still had to play Denver in Denver that wouldn't have changed at all. The Ravens would have hosted the opener against someone else not Devner But I will say again IMO the NFL can't sit there and predict what teams are going to be good any given year. The schedule even comes out before the draft has taken place. I just don't think they can stack the deck. Just because a team won the division a year ago doesn't mean they are going to be a top team the fallowing year. As we have seen sometimes a team can go from worst to first. So I just don't think the league can give a team a helping hand with the schedule. You just don't know what teams are going to be good any given year.

And I did call out the refs for the calls Denver got throughout the year. Again I said I agree with you on Denver getting calls. It's just the schedule aspect to it that I think is a reach.

[brdempsey69]

I understood what you were saying I guess it's a matter of what do you put more stock in a division title or a super bowl title. IMO playing the defending super champs is right up there with a division champ. If you think otherwise then I will just agree to disagree there. I did think that the Ravens should have hosted the opener and still think it's silly that they didn't since they had a ball park full of people watching it on the big screen. But the Ravens would have still had to play Denver in Denver that wouldn't have changed at all. The Ravens would have hosted the opener against someone else not Devner But I will say again IMO the NFL can't sit there and predict what teams are going to be good any given year. The schedule even comes out before the draft has taken place. I just don't think they can stack the deck. Just because a team won the division a year ago doesn't mean they are going to be a top team the fallowing year. As we have seen sometimes a team can go from worst to first. So I just don't think the league can give a team a helping hand with the schedule. You just don't know what teams are going to be good any given year.

And I did call out the refs for the calls Denver got throughout the year. Again I said I agree with you on Denver getting calls. It's just the schedule aspect to it that I think is a reach.

This is true that they don't have 100% certainty what teams are going to be good or bad from one year to the next, but the main point is this:

"Why no games in an opponents park during the first 6 weeks of the Donks schedule that had made the playoffs the season before when it's quite routine for teams that win their division the year before to have to play a road game against an opponent that had made the post-season the previous year ( very rare that they don't )?"

They do know who has been in the post-season the year prior. And nobody can buy into the "TV flexible scheduling" theory. How do we know that the schedule is built one week at a time or exactly how it's built from year to year? None of us do. It's not a question of agreement or disagreement, because I'm saying the possibility is there, and one's belief or disbelief doesn't eliminate that existing possibility.

[Justin5772002]

Whoa! Wait a minute there BRDEMPSY! You say that you tell it like it is? Are you calling yourself GOD? Saying your word is Gospel? You have psych issues that you need to have checked by a therapist. Nobody's word is Gospel except the LORD himself

[Mongo]

Matt, read this again, carefully:



It does raise the question as to why the Donks were the exception, now doesn't it? You yourself had said something to the effect that the Ravens should have been hosting that game regarding the Donks instead of the other way around. You yourself was the first one on these forums to point out the multiple officiating gaffs regarding the Donkeys in their game against Dallas. And you didn't see me saying you were going overboard.

Do note that the Donks had to play in ATL and NE in 2012, within their first 6 games and lost and then they did go on a 11 game winning streak to capture home-field advantage. Okay, no problem, they earned it outright and there weren't any discussions about officiating gaffs occurring in their favor during the 2012 season -- because it wasn't happening. But, once the playoffs started, what happened? One and done, just like 1996 when the Donks went 13-3 and had home-field advantage, only to have the Jags beat them in the opening round. The '96 Donks did play a road game against a team that made the playoffs the year before -- the Chiefs and lost.

I've never said the league was conspiring to favor the Donks by giving them an easy schedule to start the season in '97, '98, and 2013 ( maybe they did, maybe they didn't -- nobody here can truthfully say they know for certain ), but the fact is the Donks did get easy schedules to start all three of those seasons and going into those seasons one could easily see they were VERY likely going to get off fast starts, which raises the obvious question regarding their schedules -- WHY? Why no games in an opponents park that had made the playoffs the season before when it's quite routine for teams that win their division the year before to have to play a road game against an opponent that had made the post-season the previous year ( very rare that they don't )?



I find your stupid theories to support your argument ( TV flexible scheduling) even more amusing. I have told like it was. I stated to the effect that if one believes that the league office is without spot or blemish and 100% honest in everything they do, then one is a naive idiot and you've proven just that to be so.

LOL. You lost me at "stupid talk". You've proven to be someone who, if they cannot convince someone of their preposterous theories, resorts to insulting them. Every board has a guy like you. Glad you showed yourself early in my time here.

[brdempsey69]

Whoa! Wait a minute there BRDEMPSY! You say that you tell it like it is? Are you calling yourself GOD? Saying your word is Gospel? You have psych issues that you need to have checked by a therapist. Nobody's word is Gospel except the LORD himself

Don't be an idiot. I never implied any such thing. No clue where you're coming from with that one, but not only are you way off base, but not even remotely in the ballpark.

Sounds like the proverbial copout of "can't attack the message, so attack the messenger". Doesn't refute anything I said regarding the Donkeys tainted SB appearances. Why don't you try the correct course of proving what I've said to be false beyond a shadow of a doubt, instead of false accusations.

LOL. You lost me at "stupid talk". You've proven to be someone who, if they cannot convince someone of their preposterous theories, resorts to insulting them. Every board has a guy like you. Glad you showed yourself early in my time here.

And every board has someone like you that comes with their stupid talk and talk this dumb trash like their opinion should be taken for fact. I must say I thoroughly enjoy shooting bullet holes in their stupid talk.

Peoples exhibit A regarding your stupid talk from another thread:

"Jenkins and Hemingway are not the answer" <--your own words. Nobody know what will happen with either of those guys in 2014. Hemingway could very well become a solid regular contributor in 2014. Jenkins might become the regular slot WR and upgrade the position. Who thought going into 2013, that WR Riley Cooper in Philly would be become a regular contributor to the point that after the 2013 seasons end he would be getting a lucrative contract? Nobody. And yet you're talking this dumb trash regarding Jenkins and Hemingway like the 2014 games have already been played. Nobody knows as of yet, whether these guys will bolster the Chiefs receiving core in 2014 or ultimately prove that it's time to part ways and move on -- that has yet to be determined.

I remember one guy just like you, last year at kansascity.com bashing Alex Smith and saying stuff such as he guaranteed that Chiefs would be picking top 5 in the 2014 because of Alex and that the Chiefs would draft a QB.
You sound just like him.

[Mongo]

Don't be an idiot. I never implied any such thing. No clue where you're coming from with that one, but not only are you way off base, but not even remotely in the ballpark.

Sounds like the proverbial copout of "can't attack the message, so attack the messenger". Doesn't refute anything I said regarding the Donkeys tainted SB appearances. Why don't you try the correct course of proving what I've said to be false beyond a shadow of a doubt, instead of false accusations.



And every board has someone like you that comes with their stupid talk and talk this dumb trash like their opinion should be taken for fact. I must say I thoroughly enjoy shooting bullet holes in their stupid talk.

Peoples exhibit A regarding your stupid talk from another thread:

"Jenkins and Hemingway are not the answer" <--your own words. Nobody know what will happen with either of those guys in 2014. Hemingway could very well become a solid regular contributor in 2014. Jenkins might become the regular slot WR and upgrade the position. Who thought going into 2013, that WR Riley Cooper in Philly would be become a regular contributor to the point that after the 2013 seasons end he would be getting a lucrative contract? Nobody. And yet you're talking this dumb trash regarding Jenkins and Hemingway like the 2014 games have already been played. Nobody knows as of yet, whether these guys will bolster the Chiefs receiving core in 2014 or ultimately prove that it's time to part ways and move on -- that has yet to be determined.

I remember one guy just like you, last year at kansascity.com bashing Alex Smith and saying stuff such as he guaranteed that Chiefs would be picking top 5 in the 2014 because of Alex and that the Chiefs would draft a QB.
You sound just like him.

That's called an opinion, junior. I don't preface everything I say with IMO. That doesn't mean I pose it as fact. I have confidence in my opinion.

If Hemingway and Jenkins become regular contributors and even All-Pro performers, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong, happily. Because the Chiefs will benefit. Until then neither has done anything in their career to lead me to believe this will change. It is likely I'm right and those who hope these guys, and Sanders Commings and Mike Catapano make it will be disappointed.

Until then you run along and continue to think you proven or disproven something. All you've proven is that you are delusional and in need of clinical treatment.

[matthewschiefs]

This is true that they don't have 100% certainty what teams are going to be good or bad from one year to the next, but the main point is this:

"Why no games in an opponents park during the first 6 weeks of the Donks schedule that had made the playoffs the season before when it's quite routine for teams that win their division the year before to have to play a road game against an opponent that had made the post-season the previous year ( very rare that they don't )?"

They do know who has been in the post-season the year prior. And nobody can buy into the "TV flexible scheduling" theory. How do we know that the schedule is built one week at a time or exactly how it's built from year to year? None of us do. It's not a question of agreement or disagreement, because I'm saying the possibility is there, and one's belief or disbelief doesn't eliminate that existing possibility.

The fact that they can't tell what teams are going to be good any year is why I do think the flex tv thing is a factor in the schedule.

There are certain matchups that people just want to see and have proven that every year. Such as Manning vs Brady. That matchup is more often then not late in the year. The NFL is hedging there bets there. Sometime a game looks like it's going to be a great game early in the year but then when it comes time to play people really don't care. Case in point our 2012 MNF game. Early in the season we were going to be a tough good team. By time it came time to play that game our season was already a nightmare. So I do think the tv has a lot to do with the timing in matchups. It's not IMO trying to give this team or that team a easy road it's trying to make sure every week there is a high profile game to make money. That's just my opinion though as you said we don't know what goes into making the schedule and I don't discount your thought. I just don't think that's what happens.

[brdempsey69]

That's called an opinion, junior. I don't preface everything I say with IMO. That doesn't mean I pose it as fact. I have confidence in my opinion.

I'm fully aware that you were posting your opinion and I stated such, little girl. Nobody cares about your confidence in your opinion. Nobody's going to take your opinion for fact, either. Doubtful that anybody else has the same confidence in your opinion that you do.

If Hemingway and Jenkins become regular contributors and even All-Pro performers, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong, happily. Because the Chiefs will benefit. Until then neither has done anything in their career to lead me to believe this will change. It is likely I'm right and those who hope these guys, and Sanders Commings and Mike Catapano make it will be disappointed.

Sure, you can predict the future and you know for certain what's going to happen. You probably also can stick one finger in your behind and one in your mouth and rotate those fingers whenever you hear a bird chirp and walk on your elbows all in the same given moment as well. So what?

The reality is, nobody knows for certain what's going to happen with these guys and the example I pointed of Riley Cooper clearly illustrates that.

Until then you run along and continue to think you proven or disproven something. All you've proven is that you are delusional and in need of clinical treatment.

LOL, The delusion is clearly on your side, for one thing being delusional enough to think that I'm going to just "run along", as you suggest. I'm not going anywhere. Secondly, for being delusional enough to think that I won't accept the challenge regarding the statement "All you've proven is that you are delusional and in need of clinical treatment" because I'll bet a large sum of money that I could walk into any clinic in the country, undergo any type of psychological evaluation, and walk out of that clinic with the clinic saying "there's nothing wrong with him".

And what have you proven? Nothing, but have aroused suspicion that you're getting puked out about not being to win any war of words with me.