PDA

View Full Version : Are the Chiefs linebackers any where near as tough as the Patriot linebackers ??????


warpaint99
01-16-2005, 07:11 PM
I say no way. Fujita , K. Mitchell and Barber are way too soft.

If the Chiefs get a FREE AGENT MLB then hopefully MiTCHELL gets moved to OLB.

Phobia
01-16-2005, 07:12 PM
Dumbest question since royc's last post.

Wow.

The Bad Guy
01-16-2005, 07:14 PM
I just wasted 10 seconds opening this and replying to this thread.

Are the Chiefs linebackers as tough as the Patriots practice squad players?

Survey says...

No.

Deberg_1990
01-16-2005, 07:23 PM
If you have to ask this retarded question.........Geez...

Fat Elvis
01-16-2005, 07:24 PM
The Pat's cheerleaders could kick our LBs' asses.

rocks
01-16-2005, 07:38 PM
Mitchell's problem is not physical ability, the guy is speed and all muscle. His problem is smarts. The pro game is just to fast for him to figure out what is going on in the time that it takes to make a play. Inside Outside, don't really matter IMO.

Bowser
01-16-2005, 07:42 PM
The Pat's cheerleaders could kick our LBs' asses.

Yeah, but I bet they don't fit the "profile".

:shake:

Mr. Kotter
01-16-2005, 07:43 PM
No. :banghead:

PastorMikH
01-16-2005, 08:07 PM
Our LBs don't even deserve to have their names mentioned in the same sentance as the Pat's LBs.

DeepSouth
01-16-2005, 08:08 PM
The answer is obviously; NO!

I often wonder why people think a defensive back is the most needed position for the Chiefs. The Patriots played Wide Receivers at CB this year and beat several teams including the high powered Chiefs. Since I feel the Chiefs Defensive line is decent, that leaves the linebackers as the position most lacking.

I believe, if the Chiefs upgrade at least two of the three linebacker postions, they will be much improved in 2005.

Miles
01-16-2005, 08:11 PM
Dont worry the government will step in and fix it all. They can subsidize the contracts of KC's linebackers and at the same time break up the NE D that is screwing up the league with their superior talent.

Iowanian
01-16-2005, 08:12 PM
Mitchell would be worse at OLB than Gochiefs is at banging strippers.

PastorMikH
01-16-2005, 08:15 PM
The answer is obviously; NO!

I often wonder why people think a defensive back is the most needed position for the Chiefs. The Patriots played Wide Receivers at CB this year and beat several teams including the high powered Chiefs. Since I feel the Chiefs Defensive line is decent, that leaves the linebackers as the position most lacking.

I believe, if the Chiefs upgrade at least two of the three linebacker postions, they will be much improved in 2005.



You know, now that you mention it, with Morton's ability to get his hands on the ball and knock it to the ground, he might do pretty well at DB.

Pants
01-16-2005, 08:17 PM
Dumbest question since royc's last post.

Wow.

rofl

Bowser
01-16-2005, 08:17 PM
You know, now that you mention it, with Morton's ability to get his hands on the ball and knock it to the ground, he might do pretty well at DB.

Haha.

Iowanian
01-16-2005, 08:18 PM
The real question is............Did III lay more pipe than Wabasha Plumbing this weekend?

I'm hoping h She didn't Hurt him.

WilliamTheIrish
01-16-2005, 08:19 PM
Dont worry the government will step in and fix it all. They can subsidize the contracts of KC's linebackers and at the same time break up the NE D that is screwing up the league with their superior talent.

Heh heh...

I do love cross thread humor.

DeepSouth
01-16-2005, 08:20 PM
You know, now that you mention it, with Morton's ability to get his hands on the ball and knock it to the ground, he might do pretty well at DB.
Touche'

Iowanian
01-16-2005, 08:23 PM
The Chiefs Defensive problems are obviously Bill Clinton's fault, not Ws...........The Chiefs Defense went out with the last round of Base closings.

Skip Towne
01-16-2005, 08:25 PM
What is really funny is that when VD first got here he pointed out that we had one LB that cost more than all 3 of NE's LB's. His justification for dumping Donnie Edwards.

WilliamTheIrish
01-16-2005, 08:26 PM
What is really funny is that when VD first got here he pointed out that we had one LB that cost more than all 3 of NE's LB's. His justification for dumping Donnie Edwards.

The Colonel???

Do tell....

Bowser
01-16-2005, 08:27 PM
What is really funny is that when VD first got here he pointed out that we had one LB that cost more than all 3 of NE's LB's. His justification for dumping Donnie Edwards.

I remember that. Good thing we let Donnie go so we could keep Larry Parker and that other WR that "knew the system" in St. Louis. Chris Thomas?

milkman
01-16-2005, 08:49 PM
The answer is obviously; NO!

I often wonder why people think a defensive back is the most needed position for the Chiefs. The Patriots played Wide Receivers at CB this year and beat several teams including the high powered Chiefs. Since I feel the Chiefs Defensive line is decent, that leaves the linebackers as the position most lacking.

I believe, if the Chiefs upgrade at least two of the three linebacker postions, they will be much improved in 2005.

Agreed.
I do believe that both the DL and secondary need to be upgraded, but the most vital area of need is (or should be) clearly LB.
I don't think we have one LB that could start for any other NFL team.

warpaint99
01-16-2005, 08:56 PM
The patriots found most of their LB's in the lower rounds . I think .

Amnorix
01-17-2005, 04:13 AM
The patriots found most of their LB's in the lower rounds . I think .

Willie McGinest - 1st round pick (#4 overall) in about 1994

Tedy Bruschi - 3rd round pick in 1996

Mike Vrabel - free agent pickup from the Steelers (nobody valued him highly)

Ted Johnson - 2nd round pick in about 1995

Rosevelt Colvin - free agent pickup from the Bears (highly valued FA)

Roman Phifer - free agent pickup from the Rams (nobody valued him highly)

Rausch
01-17-2005, 04:38 AM
GAH-Nurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt!