Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 101

Thread: chiefs done before season starts?

  1. #1
    Member Since
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    454

    Default chiefs done before season starts?

    The quarterback swears he'll be playing somewhere else come September and the defensive end isn't letting a pending suspension stop him from complaining he is underpaid.
    When the head coach isn't angrily scolding the media, he's insisting he is an honest man no matter what the disgruntled quarterback might imply.
    As far as general manager Carl Peterson is concerned, just about everybody seems unhappy with him, especially media critics who blast away on a daily basis. But it's not true that he's fled the country. He's only in Scotland for the birth of a grandchild.
    The month of May has been anything but merry for the Kansas City Chiefs. If the normally short, laid-back practices of the spring are this tumultuous, what chaos and controversy must loom in the autumn?
    "This is the offseason. Are you kidding me?" coach Herm Edwards exclaimed this week while parrying with reporters.
    "We will have a starting football team when we go to Houston (for the Sept. 9 season opener). They'll be the best 46 guys in my opinion who can help us win games. Period."
    But if only it were that simple. For many reasons beyond his control, Edwards is finding the sledding rough as he goes about retooling one of the NFL's oldest lineups and patching up quarrels between players and the front office.
    The biggest irritant, for both the quarterback and the coach, is the presence of Trent Green.
    Soon to turn 37, the two-time Pro Bowler figures he's not in the long-range plans for a team which Edwards has said needs to get younger.
    So he and his agent worked a deal with Miami after, Green says, Peterson assured him the club would make a trade if he found a team that wanted him.
    But Peterson and the Dolphins have been unable to agree on compensation, leading to the absurd situation of having a quarterback taking practice snaps this week with what will probably soon be ex-teammates.
    "It's very strange," Green says. "I don't even know my role."
    What's infuriated Edwards have been implications he has not been truthful when he said Green would be given a fair chance to win the starting job.
    "If a situation changes down the road, that doesn't mean that I didn't tell the truth," he snapped at reporters after one practice. "The one thing I do is tell the truth. Maybe some people can't accept that. If the situation changes, don't get it twisted like, `He said this and now it's this.'"
    Edwards was so angry at one local radio sports talk host, he led him away from the group and got in his face, gesturing forcefully as the startled young man backed away.
    But if Green is upset with Peterson for not pulling the trigger on the Miami trade, Jared Allen is absolutely furious with the sometimes-confrontational general manager. In a move that could only be termed a public relations disaster, Allen went public last winter with his demands to be traded shortly after he was arrested for a second DUI.
    Predictably, he's been suspended for the first four games of this coming season and Peterson has refused to yield to his contract demands.
    But after having dinner and a heart-to-heart talk one night in Las Vegas with Edwards, Allen signed a one-year tender and reported this week. He's slimmed down, in good condition and promising to make no waves.
    But he's also angry at Peterson.
    "I don't have anything to prove to the Chiefs. I'm going to go out and play the same way I've been playing for the last three years, and that will take care of itself," he said.
    "My teammates and Herm. That's why I'm here," he said. "This is one of my favorite coaching staffs I've ever played for."
    Amid this backdrop, contract negotiations are also heating up between Peterson and the agent for Pro Bowl running back Larry Johnson. Nobody is predicting a smooth ride.
    But to Pro Bowl guard Brian Waters, all the behind-the-scenes maneuvers are just a part of "the shrewdness of this organization."
    "They've always been very shrewd business types," he said. "I don't think they've ever gone out and taken many risks on players. They always stay tight to their business plan."
    So does that bother the players?
    "It bothers you when it's your time to get paid."


    :sign0136:
    :character00112:

  2. #31
    Member Since
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admin View Post
    I hear ya. Everytime I login to the site I'm waiting to read one Chief31's rants about how bad the Chiefs have sucked in the past, how they currently suck, and how they will suck in the future.

    Yet, in the last 20 years they have probably been one of the 3 most successful NFL teams in terms of wins/losses.
    Coach, I think that one was a little bit, below the belt. I thought very highly of the "past" Chiefs teams. I don't think I have posted anything about how bad any of our past teams have been. The next time, I think the ref will have to have the judges deduct a point from you.

  3. #32
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Read the name dumbass!!
    Posts
    13,363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    The object of the offense should be to score points. I will repeat, that Under Vermiel, the Chiefs dominated time of possession. Look it up. No offense is good enough to have helped that defense. If you attempt to "slow it down", for the sake of your defense, then you fail to score, and lose the game.

    Yeah, the Chiefs needed to have the ball last, or build a large lead, to hold on for the win. I think that you just made my point. The defense was THAT bad. If the offense held possession, four minutes longer than the opposition, while managing to tally... say... thirty-two points .... Exactly what would you have them do, to further aid the defense?

    No matter what attempt at logic that you utilize, to make sense of schucking the offense, it will still come up as illogical.

    ANYWAY.... I stopped in here, (This thread) to voice my optimism, no matter how mild it may be.

    I would like to request a new forum, for all of the little spats that I wind-up in. How about creating a new forum, called "The Ring"? I think it would be fun to invite some fellow Chiefs fans to "get in the ring". Lol.
    I am just kidding, here. Easy there Canada... I don't want in the ring with some crazed, beer chuggin', large Canadian Chiefs fan. Lol.


    I don't remember ever saying that they weren't bad. i am saying that the defence we have now is not that bad and a little help from the offence and vice versa won't hurt the team.

    No offence taken, we are all entitled to our opinions. If we all agreed all the time then we would have nothing to talk about. :)

  4. #33
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    31,643

    Default

    Nothing wrong with spirited debate; I enjoy reading all points of view and think you both present valid arguments. As long as it remains respectful, and it has, things will be fine, and I see no reason to begin deleting posts, moving or removing the thread. :)

  5. #34
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    31,643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canada's #1 Chiefs Fan View Post
    [/b]

    I don't remember ever saying that they weren't bad. i am saying that the defence we have now is not that bad and a little help from the offence and vice versa won't hurt the team.

    No offence taken, we are all entitled to our opinions. If we all agreed all the time then we would have nothing to talk about. :)

    Ditto! My Canadian friend; that's what makes us the :invasion: !

    Oh, and I'll watch my beloved Chiefs regardless of expectations; high, low or none.

  6. #35
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    31,643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Coach, I think that one was a little bit, below the belt. I thought very highly of the "past" Chiefs teams. I don't think I have posted anything about how bad any of our past teams have been. The next time, I think the ref will have to have the judges deduct a point from you.
    LOL!!
    ...Aint gonna happen; coach is the ref. :p

  7. #36
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chiefster View Post
    Ditto! My Canadian friend; that's what makes us the :invasion: !

    Oh, and I'll watch my beloved Chiefs regardless of expectations; high, low or none.

    I believe that is what ties us all together. No matter if we are 1-14 at the end of the year, I have a feeling all the regulars will be on this site the Saturday before Week 17 talking about what we need to do to get win #2.

    But I still say the offense will probably be no worse than last year and the defense is improved. I say 10-6 and first round in Indy again. But we'll have a different Solari calling the plays this year (experienced & ready to go) and we won't have Herm shaking in his boots to yank the perernial (sp?) pro-bowler. We walk out with a win....
    You can only have one favorite team. There are no "second favorites".
    -- Chris, resident of Arrowhead East (St. Louis)

  8. #37
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    31,643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stlchief71 View Post
    I believe that is what ties us all together. No matter if we are 1-14 at the end of the year, I have a feeling all the regulars will be on this site the Saturday before Week 17 talking about what we need to do to get win #2.

    But I still say the offense will probably be no worse than last year and the defense is improved. I say 10-6 and first round in Indy again. But we'll have a different Solari calling the plays this year (experienced & ready to go) and we won't have Herm shaking in his boots to yank the perernial (sp?) pro-bowler. We walk out with a win....

    I sure hope you're right; this season will be, if nothing else, interesting. :)

  9. #38
    Member Since
    Jun 2006
    Location
    betwwen lost and nowhere,southcentral ks.
    Posts
    1,258

    Default

    the offense goes out and gets a 20 plus lead and we loose. thats bad "d". in todays nfl its real hard to get a balanced team. afew have done it but just a few. give me a attacking high scoring, take some chances, 'O' over some pu$$ whiped offense any day. if the deffense cant hold their own with a 20 plus lead then the team dosent shouldn`t be in the dance.
    i can remember what a chief super bowl team looks like! ......

  10. #39
    Member Since
    May 2007
    Posts
    32

    Default

    It seems like more teams have won the super bowl with a balanced team. The only teams I can think of that won with high powered off or great def is the rams and ravens.

  11. #40
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    31,643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TXChief View Post
    It seems like more teams have won the super bowl with a balanced team. The only teams I can think of that won with high powered off or great def is the rams and ravens.

    Agreed! In the 1980s the 49rs did pretty well with the west coast offense and Joe Montana, and before that it was Terry Bradshaw and the steel curtain in the 1970s. :)
    Last edited by Chiefster; 06-17-2007 at 03:38 PM.

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •