Chris Simms appears to be going to be cut..

[CHIEFCANNON]

With Chris Simms getting closed to being cut... is he better than what we've got on the books now to give him a look.

[milkman]

Oh and another thing, if by "management" you are also including ownership, then yes, I blame management for 37 years of sucktitude and mediocrity.

I don't have all the answers.

I do know, however, that we've seen a lot of change over the years in roster, but only one change in the front office, and none in ownership, until this last year when Lamar died.

Who do you think should get the blame?

[Canada]

Oh and another thing, if by "management" you are also including ownership, then yes, I blame management for 37 years of sucktitude and mediocrity.

I don't have all the answers.

I do know, however, that we've seen a lot of change over the years in roster, but only one change in the front office, and none in ownership, until this last year when Lamar died.

Who do you think should get the blame?

Some of it should go to the millionaires who actually play the game. I am not saying that management is not at fault, but at some point there was a championship calibur team on the field that did not produce. I believe we went 13-3 three times to be bounced out in round 1. Management again?

[milkman]

Some of it should go to the millionaires who actually play the game. I am not saying that management is not at fault, but at some point there was a championship calibur team on the field that did not produce. I believe we went 13-3 three times to be bounced out in round 1. Management again?

Really? Championship calibre?

Steve Bono at QB?
And who the hell were the WRs?

Lockett? LaChapelle?
Hell, I can't even remember.

And then you had Paul Hackett go away from what was working and decide to let Bono throw the ball around?
Why?

And how about Marty waiting until late in the game to make a change at QB, then relying on an unreliable kicker?

That wasn't a championship calibre team, just a championship calibre defense.

Then there was the '97 team.
Elvis and who again were the receivers?

Marty's decision to play Elvis after only one game back from injury.

Again, another championship calibre defense but not a championship calibre team.

And that '03 team with a nearly historically bad defense.

Those teams failed because they were incomplete.

Hell I might even give you the '97 team, except that it was Marty, and Marty's approach allowed teams to stay in games.

That works in the regular season, but in the playoffs, good teams that stay in games will more often than not find ways to win, especially when they have all time greats at QB.

But, again, in the end, they were all incomplete teams, and that is on management.

[Canada]

That's what I thought. The game is played on paper. The players never really need to perform. They had the ability to go 13-3 but not win a playoff games. That is the players man. Keep telling yourself it is all management and not the players. Hire Simms and then blame management when he sucks too. 13-3 and can't win a playoff game. All management. They must have strategically picked players that would perform really well during the regular season and then **** the bed in the playoffs. Those guys are hard to find, but CP did it!! Way to go!!

[milkman]

That's what I thought. The game is played on paper. The players never really need to perform. They had the ability to go 13-3 but not win a playoff games. That is the players man. Keep telling yourself it is all management and not the players. Hire Simms and then blame management when he sucks too. 13-3 and can't win a playoff game. All management. They must have strategically picked players that would perform really well during the regular season and then **** the bed in the playoffs. Those guys are hard to find, but CP did it!! Way to go!!

The Chiefs of the 90s were incomplete, which is a big reason they would win 9-10 games most years.

They had a couple of years where a lot of things bounced their way, and they finished with 13 wins, but those teams without a couple of lucky bounces were not the best teams in the conference, and I can tell you at that time I was telling people those teams could not advance to the SB because they didn't have the offense, and because of Marty.

That '03 team got where they did because of the offense and Dante Hall, but they were another team they never had any chance in the playoffs to advance to the SB.

In order for any of those teams to get anywhere in the playoffs, everything would have had to fallen just right.

You can't go into the playoffs and expect to beat good teams with half a team.

Maybe we should have won the Indy game in '95, but there isn't any way they advance beyond that.

They didn't have the talent on on side of the ball or the other to overcome mistakes.

We had to many suckass players

[milkman]

Oh, and yes the players have to perform.

But those players performed as I expected them to perform.

[milkman]

And further, I've always complained the approach the Chiefs have taken to building this team.

I am one of the rare people who believed, and still believe, that trading for Montan was a mistake.

I believed, and still believe, that it didn't serve the long term interests of the team.

It was a low risk, short term reward move.

And in the end it didn't achieve the goal.

Signing Simms would be a low risk move that could potentially have high rewards.

If it didn't work out, I wouldn't ****** because I'm not expecting anything.

[CHIEFCANNON]

Simms still has potential upside, Huard does not.

Back in the day, QBs almost always sat on the bench for a couple of years before they were given a chance to start, and Morton was actually a pretty good QB.

I agree with you that Thigpen should be given a shot if Croyle bombs.

And you are right, there aren't many QBs that could have performed behind that abortion of an O-Line last year, but in spite of his fragility, Croyle didn't curl up in a fetal position and suck his thunmb when he felt pressure like Huard did.

There's no reason that Simms couldn't compete for the #2 spot and play if Croyle sucks, because he still young and still may have potential to start.

Huard, on the other hand, offers jack.

He isn't the QB of the now, and he isn't the QB of the future.

I want to put players on this roster that have the potential to be a part of the future, where ever possible.

Simms isn't given a chance in TB because Gruden likes old washed up vets, and even though Simms was starting to get before he got hurt, and Gradkowski showed some upside, they weren't given any real opportunity by Gruden.

Enlighten us all as to how Huard has no upside or Jack! Huard never was the QB of the future .. he's a veteran "Back-up" that can run a team when the rookies can't think. He's nothing but, stable insurance with a stable 0-line as a caveat' to him performing at the starting level. Why do teams sign Testaverde at his age?

[greg3564]

I don't believe any player should be brought in to strictly be a back-up. If Simms was brought in, it would be for that purpose. He won't be a starter again in the NFL.

He was an average QB at Texas who could kill weak teams and get killed by good ones. He put up good numbers but would lose critical games that counted the most. He was also criticized for no leadership ability and is known as a whiner.

I think the whole "I'm the son of Phil Simms" factor has made him a primadona and it showed both at Texas and at Tampa Bay.

[hermhater]

Some of it should go to the millionaires who actually play the game. I am not saying that management is not at fault, but at some point there was a championship calibur team on the field that did not produce. I believe we went 13-3 three times to be bounced out in round 1. Management again?

I hate Peyton Manning.

Quit yelling at our players Canada.