PDA

View Full Version : I've decided:


Nightfyre
11-16-2004, 02:10 PM
We know nothing about the Chiefs.
After reading what DV has had to say in his most recent Q&As and in his Show, We cannot possibly evaluate the talent level of our team because we are not close enough. DV works with these guys every day. He knows the ins and outs of every player on the squad. I'm gonna back him, because frankly, he knows his football. I think DV knows whats best for this football team. Every time the questioner asks him about a player who is not doing his job, DV steps it up and defends him. That is what a football team does. They back each other. If these guys continue to back each other, the wins will start coming back. If DV says we have the talent, then we have it. He's been there and done that multiple times. Let the man bring us home a trophy.
To emphasize the point, this is my 1000th post Im throwing behind it.

Rausch
11-16-2004, 02:13 PM
Garbage.

Everyone here knows more about this team than DV...

ENDelt260
11-16-2004, 02:14 PM
We should sign Tony Banks.

Nightfyre
11-16-2004, 02:14 PM
Garbage.

Everyone here knows more about this team than DV...
That's proposterous and you know it. You can't back that at all.

HC_Chief
11-16-2004, 02:14 PM
Lawrence Phillips

Rain Man
11-16-2004, 02:18 PM
The fact that this was nightfyre's 1000th post makes me take it much more seriously. No one dinks around in a milestone post like that.

bobbything
11-16-2004, 02:20 PM
All I know is that KC is going to go 3 out of the 4 years without a winning record under Vermiel's guidance.

So, as a taxpayer, forgive me for questioning this team.

Rausch
11-16-2004, 02:21 PM
That's proposterous and you know it. You can't back that at all.

Pretty much where I was going with that one...

Baby Lee
11-16-2004, 02:25 PM
We know nothing about the Chiefs.
After reading what DV has had to say in his most recent Q&As and in his Show, We cannot possibly evaluate the talent level of our team because we are not close enough. DV works with these guys every day. He knows the ins and outs of every player on the squad. I'm gonna back him, because frankly, he knows his football. I think DV knows whats best for this football team. Every time the questioner asks him about a player who is not doing his job, DV steps it up and defends him. That is what a football team does. They back each other. If these guys continue to back each other, the wins will start coming back. If DV says we have the talent, then we have it. He's been there and done that multiple times. Let the man bring us home a trophy.
To emphasize the point, this is my 1000th post Im throwing behind it.
Yeah, and Ken Lay knew the ins and outs of Enron better than we do. And if he'd just been given a little more time, he'd have brough the pensions back. ;)

This "he's proven it" shit was the rationale for accepting him in the first place. My position then was "he hasn't proven jack as a Chiefs HC." Four years later that position is as strong as ever.

Do I know FB better than DV, definitely not. But DV is helming a team that has 'crested' to a 3-6 record. You know who does know today's FB better than DV? Haslett, Gruden, Shanahan, and a score of other coaches with better records and more disciplined squads.

KCTitus
11-16-2004, 02:27 PM
Do I know FB better than DV, definitely not. But DV is helming a team that has 'crested' to a 3-6 record. You know who does know today's FB better than DV? Haslett, Gruden, Shanahan, and a score of other coaches with better records and more disciplined squads.

Haslett? I see the other two, but Haslett? No, sorry, I cant buy that one.

Taco John
11-16-2004, 02:28 PM
We know nothing about the Chiefs.
After reading what DV has had to say in his most recent Q&As and in his Show, We cannot possibly evaluate the talent level of our team because we are not close enough. DV works with these guys every day. He knows the ins and outs of every player on the squad. I'm gonna back him, because frankly, he knows his football. I think DV knows whats best for this football team. Every time the questioner asks him about a player who is not doing his job, DV steps it up and defends him. That is what a football team does. They back each other. If these guys continue to back each other, the wins will start coming back. If DV says we have the talent, then we have it. He's been there and done that multiple times. Let the man bring us home a trophy.
To emphasize the point, this is my 1000th post Im throwing behind it.



...and just then, the Kool Aid man burst into the room with refreshments for all!


http://www.pandagon.net/images/koolaid.jpg

The End.

MichaelH
11-16-2004, 02:30 PM
Don't doubt Dick, he might cry.

If I have to be serious for one stinkin minute, I will be. DV's a great players coach. He's tough but fair and opens his heart and family to most of his players. But he's not tough enough and this team needs a tough old SOB. It's been rumored for years that Bill Cowher wanted the HC job at KC. Too bad it won't happen now as it looks like Pittsburgh might be in the superbowl. But the Chiefs need a head coach with the fire and intensity that Cowher has.

shakesthecat
11-16-2004, 02:32 PM
Don't doubt Dick, he might cry.

If I have to be serious for one stinkin minute, I will be. DV's a great players coach. He's tough but fair and opens his heart and family to most of his players. But he's not tough and this team needs a tough old SOB. It's been rumored for years that Bill Cowher wanted the HC job at KC. Too bad it won't happen now as it looks like Pittsburgh might be in the superbowl. But the Chiefs need a head coach with the fire and intensity that Cowher has.

Ya mean like Gunther?

MichaelH
11-16-2004, 02:34 PM
Ya mean like Gunther?

It sounds it doesn't it? No not Gunther but I do like him as a DC. I'd just like to see someone that doesn't hug his players after they bombed out of the game.

Calcountry
11-16-2004, 02:34 PM
Garbage.

Everyone here knows more about this team than DV...
Esp3cially you Rouch, lmao.

:thumb:

tk13
11-16-2004, 02:38 PM
Everybody's high on you when you win and down on you when you lose... that's just the nature of the position. You hear people now saying stuff like DV's too nice. Players only respond if you're a stubborn asshole... but then you can look around the league and see a well respected guy like Parcells who is very harsh and probably more importantly to the Planet-crowd he shoots from the hip in his press conferences and is far more likely to "call a player out". Problem is his team is 3-6 too and they're getting clobbered in most of those losses.... there's more than one way to skin a cat.

shakesthecat
11-16-2004, 02:39 PM
It sounds it doesn't it? No not Gunther but I do like him as a DC. I'd just like to see someone that doesn't hug his players after they bombed out of the game.

Nice edit.
You really had me cornfused there for a second.

I hear ya. I've always been a DV backer, but it's gettin damn hard to choke down the Kool Aid the past few weeks.


My choice for the next HC. Kirk Ferentz.
He's gonna leave Iowa for the NFL sooner or later, may as well be for KC.

Calcountry
11-16-2004, 02:40 PM
Ya mean like Gunther?
Been there done that. :shake:

KCTitus
11-16-2004, 02:43 PM
Everybody's high on you when you win and down on you when you lose... that's just the nature of the position. You hear people now saying stuff like DV's too nice. Players only respond if you're a stubborn asshole... but then you can look around the league and see a well respected guy like Parcells who is very harsh and probably more importantly to the Planet-crowd he shoots from the hip in his press conferences and is far more likely to "call a player out". Problem is his team is 3-6 too and they're getting clobbered in most of those losses.... there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Remember when it was seen as a good thing that DV switched from 'hard ass' to 'nice guy' when KC was mired with Marty's stubborn assholeness?

Soupnazi
11-16-2004, 02:43 PM
Everybody's high on you when you win and down on you when you lose... that's just the nature of the position. You hear people now saying stuff like DV's too nice. Players only respond if you're a stubborn asshole... but then you can look around the league and see a well respected guy like Parcells who is very harsh and probably more importantly to the Planet-crowd he shoots from the hip in his press conferences and is far more likely to "call a player out". Problem is his team is 3-6 too and they're getting clobbered in most of those losses.... there's more than one way to skin a cat.

But the difference is that Parcells wouldn't sit around for 4 years with the same crappy players hoping for them to eventually get better.

DV has tried to show that ego-massaging and a big locker room circle jerk are most important ingredients to a winning football team, rather than a LB's ability to tackle, his speed side to side, or a CB's ability to run w/ a wideout.

KCTitus
11-16-2004, 02:44 PM
But the difference is that Parcells wouldn't sit around for 4 years with the same crappy players hoping for them to eventually get better.

Right...he signs a 41 yo qB and a washed up RB and a never was at WR.

MichaelH
11-16-2004, 02:45 PM
Remember when it was seen as a good thing that DV switched from 'hard ass' to 'nice guy' when KC was mired with Marty's stubborn assholeness?

There is a happy medium somewhere, I'm sure.

I'd still be ok with DV, but it seems his emotions are getting the best of him lately.

Bwana
11-16-2004, 02:48 PM
But the difference is that Parcells wouldn't sit around for 4 years with the same crappy players hoping for them to eventually get better.


Bingo! :thumb:

Soupnazi
11-16-2004, 02:52 PM
Right...he signs a 41 yo qB and a washed up RB and a never was at WR.

Were they improvements over what he had at those positions? Damn straight.

PastorMikH
11-16-2004, 02:54 PM
I'm not sure that we have as much problem with talent on D as we do with attitude. We don't need dirty players, but we could use some players that have a mean streak in them. Granted, there is a severe lack of talent, but are players are a little too nice on D.

ROYC75
11-16-2004, 02:54 PM
Haslett? I see the other two, but Haslett? No, sorry, I cant buy that one.

Once in a while maybe ? Like last Sunday ? :hmmm:

Nightfyre
11-16-2004, 02:55 PM
Were they improvements over what he had at those positions? Damn straight.
Hmm.... It would seem to me that team chemistry would be lost if we went out and bought all the sought after free agents this offseason. Not to mention the fact that none of them have done anything at all.

HC_Chief
11-16-2004, 02:56 PM
Hmm.... It would seem to me that team chemistry would be lost if we went out and bought all the sought after free agents this offseason. Not to mention the fact that none of them have done anything at all.

Yeah, that all-important team chemistry has been invaluable in our SB run this year.

Oh...wait...

Nightfyre
11-16-2004, 03:00 PM
Yeah, that all-important team chemistry has been invaluable in our SB run this year.

Oh...wait...
Well, lets say it went down the CP way.
We go out and get Vincent and Sapp. Then we trade for Law.

O we're smoking now!

Dr. Facebook Fever
11-16-2004, 03:03 PM
We know nothing about the Chiefs.
After reading what DV has had to say in his most recent Q&As and in his Show, We cannot possibly evaluate the talent level of our team because we are not close enough. DV works with these guys every day. He knows the ins and outs of every player on the squad. I'm gonna back him, because frankly, he knows his football. I think DV knows whats best for this football team. Every time the questioner asks him about a player who is not doing his job, DV steps it up and defends him. That is what a football team does. They back each other. If these guys continue to back each other, the wins will start coming back. If DV says we have the talent, then we have it. He's been there and done that multiple times. Let the man bring us home a trophy.
To emphasize the point, this is my 1000th post Im throwing behind it.
:Lin:

:BS:

HC_Chief
11-16-2004, 03:04 PM
Sapp, no way.

Vincent or Taylor would be an upgrade over Bartee/McCleon/Battle.

Law MOST CERTAINLY would be an upgrade.

Trotter was another guy who we should have brought in... ignoring the problem at LB didn't make it go away now did it?

Soupnazi
11-16-2004, 03:04 PM
Hmm.... It would seem to me that team chemistry would be lost if we went out and bought all the sought after free agents this offseason. Not to mention the fact that none of them have done anything at all.

Team chemistry helps you learn how to wrap up and tackle? Or does it help you run faster chasing down a play?

I like Vermeil for a lot of reasons, but this team's failures have a lot to do with his inability to evaluate talent that necessary at important positions.

Nightfyre
11-16-2004, 03:05 PM
:Lin:

:BS:
Im gonna say DV knows what it takes to get to a SB since hes done it with multiple franchises. If he says this team can do it, then I believe they can. Injuries may hurt this year, but there is always the next.

PastorMikH
11-16-2004, 03:05 PM
Trotter was another guy who we should have brought in... ignoring the problem at LB didn't make it go away now did it?



Trotter would have cost us too much money. That league minimum would just be too much for us to fork over.

HC_Chief
11-16-2004, 03:06 PM
Trotter would have cost us too much money. That league minimum would just be too much for us to fork over.

Good point.

Nightfyre
11-16-2004, 03:06 PM
Sapp, no way.

Vincent or Taylor would be an upgrade over Bartee/McCleon/Battle.

Law MOST CERTAINLY would be an upgrade.

Trotter was another guy who we should have brought in... ignoring the problem at LB didn't make it go away now did it?
Yeah, Law would have been awesome for the 30 mil he wanted only to get hurt halfway through the season. Vincent is old. We have to continue to look to the future as well as the present. See New England

tk13
11-16-2004, 03:07 PM
But the difference is that Parcells wouldn't sit around for 4 years with the same crappy players hoping for them to eventually get better.


It's a different philsophy. There's no doubt about that... but no "philsophy" is perfect. With Marty we brought in some big name FA's, I suppose after 1998 you were saying "Marty just brought in all these big name busts like McGlockton that cost us a lot of money, he should've just tried to draft and develop his own players". The real problem with what's going on now is that all of Vermeil's faith in offensive players (Hall, Green, Blaylock, etc...) has paid off, and not so much the same on the defensive end.

I also don't think "we've had the same crappy players for 4 years" on defense. Over the last couple years we replaced the entire front 7 save Eric Hicks. I've said myself we probably needed to do more with the CB position although we brought in a new starter that might have been the team MVP during the 9-0 start before completely going in the tank, and the safeties were the only halfway decent part of this defense up until a few weeks ago... not a lot you can do there.

Dr. Facebook Fever
11-16-2004, 03:09 PM
Im gonna say DV knows what it takes to get to a SB since hes done it with multiple franchises. If he says this team can do it, then I believe they can. Injuries may hurt this year, but there is always the next.
I believe he used to have what it takes. Now I believe he is all cried out. He is a sad and tired little man who has let one too many group hugs cloud his vision of what his players really are... not good enough... just like him.

Dick had his day and it has long since passed him by imo. The best thing he could do for the Chiefs in the off season is retire again for good.

Demonpenz
11-16-2004, 03:09 PM
Team chemistry helps you learn how to wrap up and tackle? Or does it help you run faster chasing down a play?

I like Vermeil for a lot of reasons, but this team's failures have a lot to do with his inability to evaluate talent that necessary at important positions.

team chemistry helps the team deal with 3-6

Nightfyre
11-16-2004, 03:09 PM
It's a different philsophy. There's no doubt about that... but no "philsophy" is perfect. With Marty we brought in some big name FA's, I suppose after 1998 you were saying "Marty just brought in all these big name busts like McGlockton that cost us a lot of money, he should've just tried to draft and develop his own players". The real problem with what's going on now is that all of Vermeil's faith in offensive players (Hall, Green, Blaylock, etc...) has paid off, and not so much the same on the defensive end.

I also don't think "we've had the same crappy players for 4 years" on defense. Over the last couple years we replaced the entire front 7 save Eric Hicks. I've said myself we probably needed to do more with the CB position although we brought in a new starter that might have been the team MVP during the 9-0 start before completely going in the tank, and the safeties were the only halfway decent part of this defense up until a few weeks ago... not a lot you can do there.
I would like to point out that McCleon had 6 ints last year, and didnt get burned a lot. He had my faith until the Jax game. He can still redeem himself this week. Look at Bartee: He has come of age at a ripe time. This team could hold together for next year.

Nightfyre
11-16-2004, 03:10 PM
team chemistry helps the team deal with 3-6
The team is not giving up yet, why should you?

Demonpenz
11-16-2004, 03:10 PM
injury's play a part in every team

Calcountry
11-16-2004, 03:10 PM
The team is not giving up yet, why should you?
Dude, what do you call that performance last Sunday?

Demonpenz
11-16-2004, 03:11 PM
i have said all along the team will go 8-8, i think with some breaks we can get there

Calcountry
11-16-2004, 03:12 PM
But the difference is that Parcells wouldn't sit around for 4 years with the same crappy players hoping for them to eventually get better.

DV has tried to show that ego-massaging and a big locker room circle jerk are most important ingredients to a winning football team, rather than a LB's ability to tackle, his speed side to side, or a CB's ability to run w/ a wideout.
Yep, that hugging chit works good when you have a defense.

HC_Chief
11-16-2004, 03:12 PM
Yeah, Law would have been awesome for the 30 mil he wanted only to get hurt halfway through the season. Vincent is old. We have to continue to look to the future as well as the present. See New England

Law was too expensive, to be sure... however the injury is a moot point. You don't know who is going to be injured going into the season.

An old Vincent / Taylor is still better than a young, brainless Battle or an old, short, McCleon. Either would have pushed Bartee to nickle, where he plays best IMO.

In this day & age, you build a team for the NOW, not three or four years down the road. An addition at LB, CB and DE in the offseason was well within our ability, as well as within our budget. DV opted, instead, to stick with the guys who brought us a piss-poor _efense three years running.

Nightfyre
11-16-2004, 03:12 PM
Dude, what do you call that performance last Sunday?
A tipped ball that got intercepted ended the game... What do you call it?

Nightfyre
11-16-2004, 03:13 PM
In this day & age, you build a team for the NOW, not three or four years down the road.
See the salary cap... This is why you build for the future.

HC_Chief
11-16-2004, 03:14 PM
See the salary cap... This is why you build for the future.

:spock:

We went into the season with $6mil UNDER the cap.

Nightfyre
11-16-2004, 03:16 PM
:spock:

We went into the season with $6mil UNDER the cap.
Thats because salaries increase drastically next year due to a backloading structure of contracts.

bobbything
11-16-2004, 03:16 PM
A tipped ball that got intercepted ended the game... What do you call it?
Yup, just bad breaks. That's why they're losing. They're just not getting the good fortune this year.

Nightfyre
11-16-2004, 03:18 PM
Yup, just bad breaks. That's why they're losing. They're just not getting the good fortune this year.
It's certainly not the only reason, but it is A reason for sure. The team has proven it can win. Injuries are hurting us. Only recovering one of ten fumbles is hurting us. A lot of what can't be controlled is hurting us.

HC_Chief
11-16-2004, 03:19 PM
Thats because salaries increase drastically next year due to a backloading structure of contracts.

:spock:
The salary cap does not carry over. If you don't spend the money, you don't get it subtracted from next year's cap.

Nightfyre
11-16-2004, 03:20 PM
:spock:
The salary cap does not carry over. If you don't spend the money, you don't get it subtracted from next year's cap.
You fail to understand. The contracts of our players get LARGER next year because their contracts are backloaded.... I am aware of the cap rules.

tk13
11-16-2004, 03:21 PM
:spock:
The salary cap does not carry over. If you don't spend the money, you don't get it subtracted from next year's cap.
No, he's talking about stuff like the fact that Priest and Trent's salaries alone increase by almost 5 million dollars next year....

HC_Chief
11-16-2004, 03:22 PM
:spock:
So.... we resigned the crappy players, left $6mil un-spent because we'd be in cap trouble <i>next</i> year if we made personnel changes to take a shot at the SB <i>this</i> year?

Nightfyre
11-16-2004, 03:24 PM
:spock:
So.... we resigned the crappy players, left $6mil un-spent because we'd be in cap trouble <i>next</i> year if we made personnel changes to take a shot at the SB <i>this</i> year?
I believe we did have the talent to make the SB this year. We almost made it the year before and the Defense was certainly looking better with Gunther at the helm.

tk13
11-16-2004, 03:24 PM
:spock:
So.... we resigned the crappy players, left $6mil un-spent because we'd be in cap trouble <i>next</i> year if we made personnel changes to take a shot at the SB <i>this</i> year?
I honestly don't know, we still were taking a shot at the SB this year, but if so, in retrospect that was probably a pretty good decision...

bobbything
11-16-2004, 03:25 PM
A lot of what can't be controlled is hurting us.
Like the development of defensive personnel? Tackling? Speed? Awareness?

I'm sorry, but for the 3rd year in a row, this defense looks lost on the field.

StcChief
11-16-2004, 03:26 PM
Their gut that Gun could whip them into a D was half right. Being half way thru with MLB injuries. We will see what how it ends.

7-9 at best. Middle draft picks with lots of needs on D.

Nightfyre
11-16-2004, 03:27 PM
Like the development of defensive personnel? Tackling? Speed? Awareness?

I'm sorry, but for the 3rd year in a row, this defense looks lost on the field.
We all assumed Gunther would solve that. New scheme changes what the players do.
-edit Also look at all the bad calls against us in key situations.

bobbything
11-16-2004, 03:30 PM
We all assumed Gunther would solve that.
Don't use "we", please. Never did I think that would do anything but add aggressivness, that would only cause the current problems we're experiencing now. One, namely, being overpursuit of the play.

Plus, it's completely exposed our tackling problems.

HC_Chief
11-16-2004, 03:35 PM
Nor I. The idea that Gunther alone would miraculously turn this D around was ludicrous at best.... closer to lunacy, really. It was blatently obvious the talent was lacking in key areas (CB, LB, DE). This was further spotlighted by INURIES during TRAINING CAMP. When Maz went down, we should have been looking to add talent. When Mitchell also went down, red flags went up all over the place.... except at 1 Arrowhead Drive.

Baby Lee
11-16-2004, 04:12 PM
Haslett? I see the other two, but Haslett? No, sorry, I cant buy that one.
Seems like there is a word that ends this argument. What was it again? Oh yeah!!!

SCOREBOARD

Rausch
11-16-2004, 04:13 PM
Seems like there is a word that ends this argument. What was it again? Oh yeah!!!

SCOREBOARD

And he's had the smaller number when it matters most...

Baby Lee
11-16-2004, 04:14 PM
I believe we did have the talent to make the SB this year. We almost made it the year before and the Defense was certainly looking better with Gunther at the helm.
If you have the TALENT to make the SB, and you are presently 3-6, the inexorable conclusion is POOR COACHING.

And when your wins are against 2 6-3 teams and a 7-2 team, while your losses are against the [fellow] dregs of the league, the inexorable conclusion is PISS POOR COACHING.

oaklandhater
11-16-2004, 04:20 PM
Yeah, and Ken Lay knew the ins and outs of Enron better than we do. And if he'd just been given a little more time, he'd have brough the pensions back. ;)

This "he's proven it" shit was the rationale for accepting him in the first place. My position then was "he hasn't proven jack as a Chiefs HC." Four years later that position is as strong as ever.

Do I know FB better than DV, definitely not. But DV is helming a team that has 'crested' to a 3-6 record. You know who does know today's FB better than DV? Haslett, Gruden, Shanahan, and a score of other coaches with better records and more disciplined squads.


i will cry my self to sleep every night if they bring in haslett. dosent really matter anyways sense i cry after draft day. :(

Baby Lee
11-16-2004, 04:22 PM
i will cry my self to sleep every night if they bring in haslett. dosent really matter anyways sense i cry after draft day. :(
I didn't say I wanted Haslett. I said Haslett was a better coach.

Rausch
11-16-2004, 04:25 PM
I didn't say I wanted Haslett. I said Haslett was a better coach. ROFL

the Talking Can
11-16-2004, 04:31 PM
I didn't say I wanted Haslett. I said Haslett was a better coach.

oh no you didn't!

Haslett is a half step above Wanstadt.

Baby Lee
11-16-2004, 04:33 PM
oh no you didn't!

Haslett is a half step above Wanstadt.
And a game ahead of us.

Taco John
11-16-2004, 11:36 PM
Someone dropped a log in the punchbowl...

milkman
11-17-2004, 05:55 AM
I don't think Dick's problem is an inability to evaluate talent.
I don't think I know football better than Dick.

I just think that Dick has difficulty making honest evaluatuions about players that he has emotional attachments with.

He wants these players to succeed, so he sticks with them well past the time he should make a change, to the detriment of the team.

KCTitus
11-17-2004, 06:08 AM
Seems like there is a word that ends this argument. What was it again? Oh yeah!!!

SCOREBOARD

And actually watching the game we can clearly see that it wasnt coaching that won/lost that game, rather it was KC's inept play that lost it.

Why wasnt McCallister running the ball more, especially after he ripped that 30 yard run on their second possession? It was almost like Marty and Greg Hill...oh wait...I forgot, you liked Marty...now I undertsand.

Ari Chi3fs
11-17-2004, 06:42 AM
...and just then, the Kool Aid man burst into the room with refreshments for all!


http://www.pandagon.net/images/koolaid.jpg

The End.


that was hilarious... repworthy...however, no rep for the donko.

Ari Chi3fs
11-17-2004, 06:44 AM
I don't ... know ... Dick.




I would tend to agree with you.

ck_IN
11-17-2004, 09:24 AM
You're welcome to your opinion night but this quote sums it up for me:

<i>From today's KC Star newspaper under the heading "Status Quo for Defense" Vermeil is quoted as saying there will be no changes in the starters for the defense because "the Chiefs don't have anyone better to replace the starters with."</i>

As bad as our defense is DV sees no reason to make changes. I'm not saying making a change would improve anything but being perfectly willing to ride the status quo is completely unacceptable to me.

Baby Lee
11-17-2004, 09:41 AM
You're welcome to your opinion night but this quote sums it up for me:

<i>From today's KC Star newspaper under the heading "Status Quo for Defense" Vermeil is quoted as saying there will be no changes in the starters for the defense because "the Chiefs don't have anyone better to replace the starters with."</i>

As bad as our defense is DV sees no reason to make changes. I'm not saying making a change would improve anything but being perfectly willing to ride the status quo is completely unacceptable to me.
DV's experience going from 4-12 to SB Champ in one offseason with the Rams has risen to religious belief with him.

Nightfyre
11-17-2004, 12:06 PM
You're welcome to your opinion night but this quote sums it up for me:

<i>From today's KC Star newspaper under the heading "Status Quo for Defense" Vermeil is quoted as saying there will be no changes in the starters for the defense because "the Chiefs don't have anyone better to replace the starters with."</i>

As bad as our defense is DV sees no reason to make changes. I'm not saying making a change would improve anything but being perfectly willing to ride the status quo is completely unacceptable to me.
What is he supposed to do? Put in worse players? We are playing our best defensive players.