PDA

View Full Version : Rand's Take: With Today's Defense, The Chiefs...


AirForceChief
04-15-2005, 01:32 PM
...would go 10-6 and grab a Wild Card. This is after his review of the schedule (and at least a six pack):

RAND: Chiefs will need a fast finish
Apr 15, 2005, 1:18:52 PM by Jonathan Rand



For the Chiefs, winning big this December should be a lot more meaningful than it was in 2004.



The Chiefs went 4-0 last December a year ago but that success came too late because they entered that month at 3-8. This year, they should be able to enter December with a winning record and their last five games, including the finale on New Year’s Day, should make or break their playoff chances.

The Chiefs’ schedule, released Wednesday, suggests a struggle early and a playoff run late. The schedule appears tough at the start but manageable at the end. Which is fine for the Chiefs, providing they can head into their bye week no worse than 2-2.

Of the Chiefs’ seven games against 2004 playoff teams, three are among their first four games, including the opener September 11 at home against the New York Jets. After a Sunday night game at Oakland and Monday night game at Denver, the Chiefs come home October 2 to face the Philadelphia Eagles, defending NFC champions. The Chiefs will certainly need a bye week after that, the first of three key stretches on their schedule.

The second key stretch begins October 23, a week after a home game against Washington. This stretch includes four road games in five weeks, with a home game against the Raiders in the middle.

The Chiefs will probably need to win at least three of these five games. They’ll likely be underdogs at San Diego on October 30 and face a tough time at Buffalo on November 13. But games at Miami on October 23 and Houston on November 20 are obviously winnable and probably will prove crucial to the Chiefs’ playoff chances.

When a team travels so much in a short stretch, it’s prone to stubbing its toe when least expected. The Chiefs can’t afford to stub their toes and, to make the playoffs, need to stand no worse than 6-4 when they meet New England, defending Super Bowl champion, on November 27 at Arrowhead.

If the Chiefs lose to the Patriots, as they did at home a year ago, you can see why the final stretch becomes so important. It includes home games against the Broncos and Chargers, back-to-back games at Dallas and the New York Giants and a home game against the Cincinnati Bengals. Here’s guessing that the Chiefs will have to win four of those last five games to make the playoffs.

Any way you look at it, the Chiefs’ won’t have a cakewalk. The Chiefs’ 16 opponents in 2004 finished 137-119, counting the records of AFC rivals San Diego, Denver and Oakland each twice.

The Chiefs play seven games against 2004 playoff teams and nine games against teams that finished 8-8 or better.

Any team prefers to play its strongest opponents at home and weakest opponents on the road. So the Chiefs should be pleased to see the Jets, Eagles and Patriots coming to Arrowhead. Of their seven games against teams that had losing records last year, the Chiefs play five of them on the road.

Though the Chiefs came limping into December last year, it wasn’t the tough spots that wrecked their season. They faced a couple of two-game stretches that offered terrific opportunities to keep the Chiefs in contention.

But instead of rebounding from an opening-loss at Denver, they lost consecutive home games to underdogs Carolina and Houston. After scoring impressive home wins over Atlanta and Indianapolis, the Chiefs faced two so-so opponents on the road. But losses at Tampa Bay and New Orleans dropped the Chiefs to 3-6 and their season was toast.

The Chiefs, who finished 7-9, could have enjoyed a successful season had they just taken care of business against ordinary opponents. But as long as their defense couldn’t stop anybody, there was no such thing as an ordinary opponent for the Chiefs.

Given a much-improved defense, the Chiefs will be less likely to lay an egg against the teams they should beat. We’ll have a better handle on the Chiefs’ prospects after they complete their draft and cornerback search, but if they had to start the season Sunday, they’d finish 10-6 and grab a wild-card playoff spot.

The opinions offered in this column do not necessarily reflect those of the Kansas City Chiefs.

ChiefsCountry
04-15-2005, 01:33 PM
Actually I say he is about right. Guys we went 7-9 last season with a crappier defense, and we could have easily won some of those games. This place should be the glass half empty planet.

Mr. Laz
04-15-2005, 01:39 PM
This place should be the glass half empty planet.
whatever :rolleyes: give us some actual football reason to think that this team is going to be significantly better and maybe it will change.


"faith" doesn't win football games

AirForceChief
04-15-2005, 01:40 PM
My post wasn't negative...like I always say, I'm a see the Kool-Aid as half-full kind of guy, I'm just not gonna drink it till I see someone else try it first.

tyton75
04-15-2005, 01:42 PM
yeah.. I'd say thats about right on in my estimation.. although he didn't stress enough how much we NEED to start off the season with a win over the JETS!!!!!!!

crossbow
04-15-2005, 01:45 PM
Actually I say he is about right. Guys we went 7-9 last season with a crappier defense, and we could have easily won some of those games. This place should be the glass half empty planet.

I could see us improving by 3 games from last year if they get a cornerback. If they don't then well, same ol same ol. The defensive line still isn't anything to brag about.

the Talking Can
04-15-2005, 01:45 PM
is he assuming we get Surtain?

because right now our defense is still a flaming piece of shit....

beer bacon
04-15-2005, 01:45 PM
yeah.. I'd say thats about right on in my estimation.. although he didn't stress enough how much we NEED to start off the season with a win over the JETS!!!!!!!

I don't see the Jets being as good this year as they were last year. The main reason being I don't think Martin will be able to to duplicate last year's monster season and will go back to his good, but not not amazing, 1100-1400 yards or so. I also don't think their passing game is good enough to pick up the slack.

beer bacon
04-15-2005, 01:46 PM
is he assuming we get Surtain?

because right now our defense is still a flaming piece of shit....

We could have gone 10-6 last year if a few things would have rolled our way. I think you guys are forgetting that this is an odd year.

HemiEd
04-15-2005, 01:47 PM
whatever :rolleyes: give us some actual football reason to think that this team is going to be significantly better and maybe it will change.


Sammy Knight, Kendrell Bell, Carlos Hall and a year of more maturity under Gunther for the rest of the defense. :hmmm:

KCTitus
04-15-2005, 01:47 PM
After a 2002 season where KC went 7-9, they added 3 of the biggest FA busts in NFL history and went 13-3.

After the 2004 season and prior to the Draft, KC has added 2 more FA's to their defense, level of bustage has yet to be determined, but I'd say that could be good for 3 wins assuming the offense stops fumbling the ball inside the 10 yard line.

Hoover
04-15-2005, 01:48 PM
I think its good for writers to do stuff like this. The problem last year was the shitty start, we have to be ready.

CoMoChief
04-15-2005, 01:51 PM
You guys forget to remember that the players look to win every game. Just because we play the Pats or the Eagles doesnt mean were gonna lose. We are very capable of beating those teams and I think this year were gonna be good granted we get DJ in the draft and Surtain and Barber gets healthy.

Mr. Laz
04-15-2005, 01:51 PM
Sammy Knight, Kendrell Bell, Carlos Hall and a year of more maturity under Gunther for the rest of the defense. :hmmm:
i never said that the team hadn't tried to make improvements and they very well may have.

but the list of possible issues is twice as long as the reasons you just gave.

i'm not going to list them because i don't wanna be a "complainer"

the Talking Can
04-15-2005, 01:53 PM
We could have gone 10-6 last year if a few things would have rolled our way. I think you guys are forgetting that this is an odd year.

most teams can say that...it's nonsense, we weren't talented enough...I hope CP isn't banking on this "odd year" vodoo...

TEX
04-15-2005, 01:55 PM
Sammy Knight, Kendrell Bell, Carlos Hall and a year of more maturity under Gunther for the rest of the defense. :hmmm:


Carlos Hall should not be expected to make the same impact as Bell and Knight. He's a rotational -type-player that's not much better than what we currently have.

beer bacon
04-15-2005, 01:55 PM
most teams can say that...it's nonsense, we weren't talented enough...I hope CP isn't banking on this "odd year" vodoo...

You didn't see the KC Star article where Carl was quoted as saying that if this was an even year he would trade for Surtain to counter the bad mojo, but since it was an odd year he has decided not to?

the Talking Can
04-15-2005, 02:02 PM
You didn't see the KC Star article where Carl was quoted as saying that if this was an even year he would trade for Surtain to counter the bad mojo, but since it was an odd year he has decided not to?
ROFL

it would not surprise me if he thought that...

bricks
04-15-2005, 02:03 PM
:rolleyes: whatever...I'm tired of these GODDAMN chiefs columnist expressing all the possible optimism, any possible way to make this franchise look good. Yes, I'm referring to Gretz, Rufus, and Rand. This defense is still a piece of sh*t, and, in my eyes they are still going to lose games because of this defense. this f*ck'n franchise has not made the playoffs 7 of the last 8 seasons, hasn't won a playoff game in 13 years, we don't need to hear this crap...pardon my language, I rarely use the lord's name in vain :mad: this article pissed me off, cause it's the same sh*t we hear over and over again with these columnists and with the Chiefs, and, it's tiring and non-believable.

*this is the statement that is absolute bullsh*t:

"The opinions offered in this column do not necessarily reflect those of the Kansas City Chiefs"

:rolleyes: :shake: B.S...everything these guys write comes out of Peterson's arse.

foxman
04-15-2005, 02:05 PM
DEFENSE!!! We don't need no stinkin DEFENSE!!

KCTitus
04-15-2005, 02:10 PM
...cause it's the same sh*t we hear over and over again with these columnists and with the Chiefs, and, it's tiring and non-believable.

So you dont believe that the schedule is tough at first and sets up for a run at the playoffs later in the year if KC manages to weather the games up front? Or is it you dont believe this team has a chance of going 10-6?

the Talking Can
04-15-2005, 02:16 PM
So you dont believe that the schedule is tough at first and sets up for a run at the playoffs later in the year if KC manages to weather the games up front? Or is it you dont believe this team has a chance of going 10-6?

c. both

none of the games on our schedule are gimmies, we proved that last year...home field meant nothing

if we sign Surtain, and if we draft Johnson, and if Fujita is healthy and starts the season, and if Warfield isn't suspended for 4 games, and if Shields doesn't retire...then you can say with a straight face "We'll end up 10-6"

way to many variables right now....

KCTitus
04-15-2005, 02:23 PM
c. both

none of the games on our schedule are gimmies, we proved that last year...home field meant nothing

if we sign Surtain, and if we draft Johnson, and if Fujita is healthy and starts the season, and if Warfield isn't suspended for 4 games, and if Shields doesn't retire...then you can say with a straight face "We'll end up 10-6"

way to many variables right now....


I like all the 'if's strung together...does that mean that if one of those 8 or 9 things dont happen there is zero chance of going 10-6?

I would agree that there are a lot of variables and, as such, right 'now' the chances of this team going 13-3, 10-6, 7-9, 4-12 are all pretty much the same.

What if all those things happen above and then Green blows out a knee and Roaf tears a bicep and Holmes gets hurt again--it's a fun game, I admit.

HemiEd
04-15-2005, 02:28 PM
i never said that the team hadn't tried to make improvements and they very well may have.

but the list of possible issues is twice as long as the reasons you just gave.

i'm not going to list them because i don't wanna be a "complainer"


Come on Laz, please! Actually I look forward to your viewpoints because they have helped me move my homer perspective more towards the middle, really! It has opened my eyes somewhat I think. I have thrown a few jabs your way, but only in good fun, don't soften now! :thumb:

HemiEd
04-15-2005, 02:30 PM
Carlos Hall should not be expected to make the same impact as Bell and Knight. He's a rotational -type-player that's not much better than what we currently have.


I agree with that.

Chiefnj
04-15-2005, 02:35 PM
It's a tough schedule, but if you are a legitimate Super Bowl contender you have to win the games you should win and you have to win games against playoff caliber teams.

Warrior5
04-15-2005, 02:43 PM
It's a tough schedule, but if you are a legitimate Super Bowl contender you have to win the games you should win and you have to win games against playoff caliber teams.

My thoughts exactly. I'm glad the Chiefs have a tough start...the adversity will be good for them.

Gravedigger
04-15-2005, 03:12 PM
I hate this lack of faith everyone has on the chiefs. I mean yea we went 7-9 last season but the season before that lets remember we were 13-3 and we had a worse defense then we did last season. Only helping our defense will help our team.

alanm
04-15-2005, 03:20 PM
"Given a much-improved defense, the Chiefs will be less likely to lay an egg against the teams they should beat. We’ll have a better handle on the Chiefs’ prospects after they complete their draft and cornerback search, but if they had to start the season Sunday, they’d finish 10-6 and grab a wild-card playoff spot."

I wouldn't take anything as a "given" about the defense at the moment. I've been fooled by their propaganda the last 4 yrs.
:cuss: :banghead: :cuss:

keg in kc
04-15-2005, 03:21 PM
He's effin' crazy.

11-5 is my guess.

alanm
04-15-2005, 03:28 PM
You guys forget to remember that the players look to win every game. Just because we play the Pats or the Eagles doesnt mean were gonna lose. We are very capable of beating those teams and I think this year were gonna be good granted we get DJ in the draft and Surtain and Barber gets healthy.
Hell we were capable of beating every team we played last year. Outside of the first game against the Broncos which slipped away in the third quarter the Chiefs were in every game. But the offense shouldn't be expected to produce 30 pts. a game every week in order to win. But we had to. And even then the _efense rose to new awe inspiring levels of suckiness. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :cuss:

ck_IN
04-15-2005, 03:37 PM
Personally I don't see the schedule as being 'that' tough. Its essentially the same schedule the rest of our division plays and if you throw out NE and Philly I'd regard it as rather easy.

The whizkids have had more then enough time to put it all together. If this team is legit then this schedule shouldn't be a problem. If we're pretenders (my take) then this schedule will prove it out.

Mile High Mania
04-15-2005, 03:46 PM
10 wins is a "safe" pick... it's not being "homer" and going 12... just 2 above .500 and should be good enough to advance. Not really going out on a limb...

I think if you asked 100 fans from various fan affilliations, "how many wins will X team get this year" ... 10 would be the answer 7 outta 10 times.

crossbow
04-15-2005, 03:48 PM
"Given a much-improved defense, the Chiefs will be less likely to lay an egg against the teams they should beat. We’ll have a better handle on the Chiefs’ prospects after they complete their draft and cornerback search, but if they had to start the season Sunday, they’d finish 10-6 and grab a wild-card playoff spot."

I wouldn't take anything as a "given" about the defense at the moment. I've been fooled by their propaganda the last 4 yrs.
:cuss: :banghead: :cuss:

Exactly!

This defense has added three players and hasn't taken a snap in an NFL game yet (as a unit). So on paper you could say it has improved but "much-improved"? Yeah, right. They hardly took giant leaps in the off season. They don't even know who the safeties and corners will be on opening day. Is he saying that the previous defense was so bad that any move at all is going to make a big improvement?

alanm
04-15-2005, 03:50 PM
10 wins is a "safe" pick... it's not being "homer" and going 12... just 2 above .500 and should be good enough to advance. Not really going out on a limb...

I think if you asked 100 fans from various fan affilliations, "how many wins will X team get this year" ... 10 would be the answer 7 outta 10 times.
Well yeah, 10 wins generally gets you invited to the dance. Unless of course you're in a tough division like the AFC East for example. 10 wins should be enough for a WC spot though. Anything over that is gravy.

Ari Chi3fs
04-15-2005, 03:55 PM
i pray we start the season at least 1-3, I think 2-2 is realistic.

alanm
04-15-2005, 04:21 PM
i pray we start the season at least 1-3, I think 2-2 is realistic.
What killed us last year was starting out 1-4. There was no excuse, None for the Carolina, Houston and Jacksonville losses. It was typical Chiefs football. Playing down to the level of the competition. I blame those losses on the Offense as the _efense certainly wasn't expected to affect the outcome of the games. The losses to Tampa Bay and New Orleans were just daggers in the heart. Add in the 1st loss to SD which was winnable. The season ender against Sandy Eggo the Chiefs didn't even show up since the season was over I don't count. And even the New England game they were in right up to the finish and realistically we should have been 14-2. What absolutely kills me is with the offense we've had the last few years. The likes of which we won't see again unless Al Saunders stays on as HC after Dick retires has utterly been squandered. All because of a pathetic defense of historic proportions that will live in infamy. If I were Gunther I'd make those guys on defense wear paper bags over their heads until they've earned the right to remove them. :cuss: :banghead: :cuss: Or better yet collect their paychecks and only hand them out if a player has earned them.

Tribal Warfare
04-15-2005, 04:25 PM
Rand's being rather opyimistic if the season strated today we would be 5-11 or 6-10. The Chiefs have a substandard LB and DB corps

Ari Chi3fs
04-15-2005, 04:31 PM
10 wins is a "safe" pick... it's not being "homer" and going 12... just 2 above .500 and should be good enough to advance. Not really going out on a limb...

I think if you asked 100 fans from various fan affilliations, "how many wins will X team get this year" ... 10 would be the answer 7 outta 10 times.

yeah, technically when you ask 100 people... more than 10 people should respond. Unless you use DOnkey math.

Logical
04-15-2005, 04:37 PM
Rand should check himself in to the Betty Ford clinic for his crack habit if he thinks with the defense as it currently stands we have a shot at 10-6. :shake:

Logical
04-15-2005, 04:38 PM
is he assuming we get Surtain?

because right now our defense is still a flaming piece of shit....Exactly

Logical
04-15-2005, 04:43 PM
It's a tough schedule, but if you are a legitimate Super Bowl contender you have to win the games you should win and you have to win games against playoff caliber teams.

I agree and right now we are a steller CB and a decent OLB away from having a defense that gives us any chance against playoff caliber teams, especially during the actual playoffs.

Frankly I could give a fark if we win against them in the regular season, if we are not good enough to beat them in the playoffs.

Saulbadguy
04-15-2005, 04:45 PM
whatever :rolleyes: give us some actual football reason to think that this team is going to be significantly better and maybe it will change.


"faith" doesn't win football games
I'm fairly convinced if the Chiefs won the next Super Bowl, you'd be the first one to say "Whatever, talk to me when they win 3 out of the next 4."

TEX
04-15-2005, 05:00 PM
Personally I don't see the schedule as being 'that' tough. Its essentially the same schedule the rest of our division plays and if you throw out NE and Philly I'd regard it as rather easy.

The whizkids have had more then enough time to put it all together. If this team is legit then this schedule shouldn't be a problem. If we're pretenders (my take) then this schedule will prove it out.

It's not so much who you play as it's when and where. Every one of our road games this year are back-to-back and that makes them more difficult. In addition, there's a stretch where the CHIEFS are on the road for 4 out of 5 weeks and they too are in back-to-back road situations. Conversely, our home games are back-to back 3 times.

In addition, it's NO FUN to have 2 prime time games in a row in weeks 2 and 3 on the road against division rivals. The way this schedule breaks down is very tough. If we fall behind early, and the schedule suggests that it easily could happen,it's going to be very hard to make up ground until late in the season, and by then it could be too late. :hmmm:

penguinz
04-15-2005, 05:07 PM
if Shields doesn't retire
Shields is not going to retire.

Gravedigger
04-15-2005, 05:13 PM
We need surtain and johnson and it will be on

penguinz
04-15-2005, 05:14 PM
It's not so much who you play as it's when and where. Every one of our road games this year are back-to-back and that makes them more difficult. In addition, there's a stretch where the CHIEFS are on the road for 4 out of 5 weeks and they too are in back-to-back road situations. Conversely, our home games are back-to back 3 times.

In addition, it's NO FUN to have 2 prime time games in a row in weeks 2 and 3 on the road against division rivals. The way this schedule breaks down is very tough. If we fall behind early, and the schedule suggests that it easily could happen,it's going to be very hard to make up ground until late in the season, and by then it could be too late. :hmmm:
Those first two road games are not going to be that big of a deal. The first is a Sunday Evenign and the next a Monday night. That gives the team an extra day between them to recover/gameplan.

TEX
04-15-2005, 05:26 PM
Those first two road games are not going to be that big of a deal. The first is a Sunday Evenign and the next a Monday night. That gives the team an extra day between them to recover/gameplan.

I understand the logic, but disagree. IMO those first two road games are KILLERS in that they're back-to-back prime time affairs, against division rivals.

Hydrae
04-15-2005, 05:41 PM
The biggest concern I have with the whole schedule is that the hardest stretch is probably the first 4 games. We don't know if we will have Warfield, Fujita or Barber. The new members of the defense will still be adjusting to how each other plays and the rookies will still be raw.

This team should improve during the season and I think we can figure on Barber and Warfield returning after the bye. But if we open 0-4 or even 1-3 it may be too late again this season.

keg in kc
04-15-2005, 07:41 PM
The first four don't scare me as much as everyone else, I guess. We'll beat the Jets. Oakland and Denver are both going to suck in '05, we should at least split those two. Philly's going to be the tough one. I don't see us starting worse than 2-2 and 3-1 wouldn't stun me (win the home games, split the prime times). The trick is going to be keeping our head above water for the six weeks after the bye so we have something to play four with that setup of four home games in the last six.

carlos3652
04-15-2005, 09:20 PM
The biggest concern I have with the whole schedule is that the hardest stretch is probably the first 4 games. We don't know if we will have Warfield, Fujita or Barber. The new members of the defense will still be adjusting to how each other plays and the rookies will still be raw.

This team should improve during the season and I think we can figure on Barber and Warfield returning after the bye. But if we open 0-4 or even 1-3 it may be too late again this season.

Where is a link showing that warfield will be out the first 4 games... the only link I have says that warfield will get a fine and put into the Drug Program.... The commish can change his mind, but for now he is free...

Fujita will be back by TC, Barber will be on PUP - if we are lucky he will be back for the final 8 games...

TEX
04-15-2005, 10:58 PM
The first four don't scare me as much as everyone else, I guess. We'll beat the Jets. Oakland and Denver are both going to suck in '05, we should at least split those two. Philly's going to be the tough one. I don't see us starting worse than 2-2 and 3-1 wouldn't stun me (win the home games, split the prime times). The trick is going to be keeping our head above water for the six weeks after the bye so we have something to play four with that setup of four home games in the last six.

Oakland and Denver will suck? How so? Oakland will at least be better offensively and that's not a good thing for the CHIEFS _efense. But you might be right in that they might suck anyway.

However, Denver will not suck IMO. Their defense is good and will keep them in many games. They knew they were weak on the DL and made many additions there. If they pay off, they will be better on defense than they were last year and they also signed Ian Gold so their LB's will be perfect for their switch to a 3-4.
On offense they might be more consistent if Bell works out so teams won't be able to force Plummer and beat them. They lack a great TE but he's adequate and will be better this year. Their Wr's are very respectable and could be very good if Ashley can pick off where he left off last year and if Watts can become more consistent. I am curious to see how their line performs with the refs watching. :hmmm:

I'm interested on your take casue it's usually pretty good. Or it will at least sound that way. ;)

keg in kc
04-15-2005, 11:28 PM
Oakland and Denver will suck? How so? Oakland will at least be better offensively and that's not a good thing for the CHIEFS _efense. But you might be right in that they might suck anyway.Oakland is going to be hurting I think. As bad as our defense has been, they've been even worse the last two years. Their solution? Trade Harris for Moss.However, Denver will not suck IMO. Their defense is good and will keep them in many games. They knew they were weak on the DL and made many additions there. If they pay off, they will be better on defense than they were last year and they also signed Ian Gold so their LB's will be perfect for their switch to a 3-4.That's where I don't agree. They signed four starters from one of the worst defensive lines in the NFL. And as much as I wanted us to sign Gold, I don't think he translates well to a 3-4 scheme because of his size. We'll see what happens, but I don't expect a whole lot defensively. The moves don't make sense to me.On offense they might be more consistent if Bell works out so teams won't be able to force Plummer and beat them. They lack a great TE but he's adequate and will be better this year. Their Wr's are very respectable and could be very good if Ashley can pick off where he left off last year and if Watts can become more consistent. I am curious to see how their line performs with the refs watching. Their lineplay will be a key, but, good or bad, I think Plummer is what ultimately kills that offense. I feel good, in a divisional sense, as long as he's at QB.

Since we're talking about the division, I also don't think much of San Diego. I expect a fall-off similar to what we experienced last year. All-in-all, I think the division is up in the air this year, and I think 10-11 wins takes it. I think we have as good a shot as anyone. I think there's even a chance we'll see some dramatic improvement on defense, depending on what further moves we make.

Gravedigger
04-16-2005, 12:34 AM
I've said it once I'll say it a billion times Randy Moss aint shit without a good quarterback to throw to him. Kerry Collins sucks hardcore he has zip for accuarcy and he doesnt scramble he had almost as many INT's last season as he did TD's. Raiders will be bottom of the barrell again. But seriously we need Johnson even though he is a rookie and we need surtain. If we give Miami our first round pick, our second rounder, and a fourth and a fifth we can get surtain and johnson and write off the first day as a good day. With Johnson, Surtain, and the late third. I'd rather give up picks we won't need then giving them up for picks we won't use this year like we did with keyaron fox.

TEX
04-16-2005, 01:44 AM
Oakland is going to be hurting I think. As bad as our defense has been, they've been even worse the last two years. Their solution? Trade Harris for Moss.That's where I don't agree. They signed four starters from one of the worst defensive lines in the NFL. And as much as I wanted us to sign Gold, I don't think he translates well to a 3-4 scheme because of his size. We'll see what happens, but I don't expect a whole lot defensively. The moves don't make sense to me.Their lineplay will be a key, but, good or bad, I think Plummer is what ultimately kills that offense. I feel good, in a divisional sense, as long as he's at QB.

Since we're talking about the division, I also don't think much of San Diego. I expect a fall-off similar to what we experienced last year. All-in-all, I think the division is up in the air this year, and I think 10-11 wins takes it. I think we have as good a shot as anyone. I think there's even a chance we'll see some dramatic improvement on defense, depending on what further moves we make.

I agree on your Oakland and San Diego takes. And I also agree on your take about Jake. However I still think that despite jake, Denver will not suck. Maybe those ex-Browns might work out? We'll see. I also feel that 10 -11 wins will win the West. Having to play the AFC East this year is going to be tough. Maybe only 1 team gets in form the West this year. Again, we'll see.

I'm curious as to why you don't think Gold will work out in the 3-4?