PDA

View Full Version : What if...


thebrad84
10-02-2005, 11:28 PM
Something I was just thinking about after another poor performance from our "improved" defense....what if the chiefs, instead of going after big time defensive players this last offseason, they would have focused on signing some big time offensive players. Perhaps sign Randy Moss (as much as I hate him), give us a huge deep threat WR, get another good #2 WR, and keep Kennison as a great #3 WR. Also, we could have got another good young offensive lineman (maybe even two), cause lets face, it was and still is pretty likely that Roaf and/or Shields may go down this year because of injury. Think about some of our losses last year, and todays game. As much as our defense sucked/sucks at letting teams right back in the games, our offense also fizzles out a lot of times when we need them to have big drives to kill clock and get some more points on the board. If we had a big time WR like Moss, our offense would be incredible. If we had some good O-line replacements, (ones who are ready to play this year, not merely improve each and everyweek, as Vermeil puts it about Black and Bober),we'd still be alright at pass protection and the running game if Shields or Roaf went down, as is the case right now. I don't know, I know its still early, but thus far this year, our new "big time defensive players" have yet to show up ~ makes you wonder if its more the coaching scheme than the players. It would be really interesting if the Chiefs would have focused on improving our offense this past offseason, cause after all, there is always room for improvement now matter how good it is/was. I think it would have been easier to improve our offense (something that was already good), with 2 or 3 new playmakers, instead of trying to improve a bad defense with 2 or 3 new playmakers. I think we can all agree that if we had a big time deep threat, it would do our offense some real good. Just a thought.

dtebbe
10-02-2005, 11:38 PM
I've been thinking just the opposite, maybe we need to trade TG or one of our running backs for a stud D-lineman. We need a dominant big guy in the middle, someone like Saleamoua back in the day. Big Dan could hold his own and apply pressure right up the middle, which is something we can't do now unless we stunt.

I'm sold on the fact that Defense wins. Our great offense has got us jack-squat.

DT

Simplex3
10-02-2005, 11:44 PM
I'm sold on the fact that Defense wins. Our great offense has got us jack-squat.

DT
You can do it with O or D in the lead but you need a good combo:

Great O and average D
Average O and great D

Problem is we had a Great O and a bad D. Now that we seem to have an average D our O is starting to look average.

Halfcan
10-02-2005, 11:49 PM
Trade TG- never in a million years.

Simplex3
10-02-2005, 11:51 PM
Trade TG- never in a million years.
Why not. If all you're going to use him for is blocking just keep Dunn.

BigMeatballDave
10-02-2005, 11:52 PM
sign Randy Moss
ROFL I stopped reading...

Simplex3
10-02-2005, 11:53 PM
ROFL I stopped reading...
It's no dumber than hiring Pete Carrol as the HC, which some fool recommended in another thread.

BigMeatballDave
10-03-2005, 12:03 AM
It's no dumber than hiring Pete Carrol as the HC, which some fool recommended in another thread.Fool? WTF? Pete has won a few in S. Cali...

thebrad84
10-03-2005, 12:08 AM
I completely agree with you that a big time D-lineman would help the chiefs out, especially their secondary. We need to get some sort of rush so the opposing QB doesnt have all day back there. However, I think if we would have focused on improving our offense even more...get randy moss and plaxico burress, and get a couple of good O-lineman, instead of Bell, Surtain, and Knight, perhaps we would put up so many points every game, we wouldn't care how our defense is doing. All we would need them to do is to make the other team punt a couple of times during the game, or get some turnovers here and there, and then make them pay for it. Our defense, under Cunninghams helm, showed they were capable of at the very least doing that last year. The chiefs in the past, as well as this year (i.e. todays game), have too many times built leads against teams they've played, and then our offense will just stutter and shut down. If we had an even better offense, which is only a couple of good WR's away, we wouldn't run in to that problem and could just burry teams with an overwhelming offense. I'm just trying to say, I think it would have been a lot easier for us to correct a few things on our offense with 2 or 3 playmakers, than obviously it is for us to correct the things on our defense with only 2 or 3 playmakers. Our team is built around our offense, not around our defense. We can't try to win games by our defense, we need to be able to win it with our offense. I know everyone is fixed on the idea that "defenses win championships," but I'd like to see what our offense could do with players like moss and burress, and have kept our D from last year. A lot of the games we lost last year wasn't because of our defense, it was because our offense would just shut down and stop scoring. Again, just saying what if..

Simplex3
10-03-2005, 12:09 AM
Fool? WTF? Pete has won a few in S. Cali...
Yes, but he sucked when he was the HC of the Jets during the mid 90's. Now if you want to talk about him as a defensive coordinator I might disagree, but at least it's a reasonable opinion.

Don't forget how he turned took the Patriots from Super Bowl loser (Parcels' last year) to nobody in three years.

College and the Pros have very little to do with eachother. It's night and day. Spurrier should have taught us that.

Simplex3
10-03-2005, 12:10 AM
A lot of the games we lost last year wasn't because of our defense, it was because our offense would just shut down and stop scoring. Again, just saying what if..
So we'd score 40+ per game but still lose by 1. Doesn't sound any better.

BigMeatballDave
10-03-2005, 12:11 AM
Yes, but he sucked when he was the HC of the Jets during the mid 90's. Now if you want to talk about him as a defensive coordinator I might disagree, but at least it's a reasonable opinion.

College and the Pros have very little to do with eachother. It's night and day. Spurrier should have taught us that.I'm still willing to give him a shot. Jimmie Johnson won a few with the cowboys...

Simplex3
10-03-2005, 12:13 AM
I'm still willing to give him a shot. Jimmie Johnson won a few with the cowboys...
Don't forget how he turned took the Patriots from Super Bowl loser (Parcels' last year) to nobody in three years.

BigMeatballDave
10-03-2005, 12:14 AM
Yes, but he sucked when he was the HC of the Jets during the mid 90's. Now if you want to talk about him as a defensive coordinator I might disagree, but at least it's a reasonable opinion.

Don't forget how he turned took the Patriots from Super Bowl loser (Parcels' last year) to nobody in three years.

College and the Pros have very little to do with eachother. It's night and day. Spurrier should have taught us that.Also, the Jets? C'mon...

thebrad84
10-03-2005, 12:19 AM
So we'd score 40+ per game but still lose by 1. Doesn't sound any better.
Umm...if i remember correctly, I dont think any team put 40+pts against our D last year. Also, if i remember correctly, a lot of the "shoot outs" (where both teams scored 30+pts) we got involved in last year, we won most of them, if not all.

Simplex3
10-03-2005, 12:21 AM
Umm...if i remember correctly, I dont think any team put 40+pts against our D last year. Also, if i remember correctly, a lot of the "shoot outs" (where both teams scored 30+pts) we got involved in last year, we won most of them, if not all.
We were under .500 last year. We didn't win most of anything.

As for shootouts, yeah that worked great against Indy in the playoffs.

thebrad84
10-03-2005, 12:25 AM
We were under .500 last year. We didn't win most of anything.

As for shootouts, yeah that worked great against Indy in the playoffs.
Yes, but that was our Defense under Robinson, not Cunningham. Last year we stopped Indy 2 or 3 times, and ended up winning the game much like how we played 2 years ago and lost. Our defense last year, under cunningham, was usually capable of making some punts here and there, and getting a couple of key turnovers here and there. Perhaps we would be better off with that same defense this year, and an even better offense, one that doesn't shut down at key times during the game.

greg63
10-03-2005, 12:31 AM
What if... ifs and buts were candy and nuts...

thebrad84
10-03-2005, 12:34 AM
What if... ifs and buts were candy and nuts...
mmm...candy. I know, what if, what if, what if....thats all this is, but its still nice to dream about something that could have been, instead of what we have right now. Who knows, maybe the D will turn it around in the Bye week, and come back ready to play. Hopefully the offense too. :)

greg63
10-03-2005, 12:37 AM
mmm...candy. I know, what if, what if, what if....thats all this is, but its still nice to dream about something that could have been, instead of what we have right now. Who knows, maybe the D will turn it around in the Bye week, and come back ready to play. Hopefully the offense too. :)

That would be nice. :)