PDA

View Full Version : SB champions in the salary cap era...


Chris Meck
01-09-2007, 02:14 PM
'been thinking...

In the NFL there are some common factors between successful teams and champs that get overlooked a lot by fans that just want to can the coach and get a new QB every year.

1. It seems to me that consistency is a major key to franchises that are successful year in and year out.

The Steelers, who have been to 6 SB's and won 5 have had TWO coaches in almost 40 years. They're rarely bad, usually pretty good, and occasionally brilliant.

In the nearly 20 year span in which San Fran was dominant or at least very good, they really had 3 head coaches (Walsh, Seifert, and Mariucci)but the same systems in place. They won 4.

Consistency. Changing systems requires different talents and different players to run them. It requires time for the entire squad to learn a new system, instead of just a few at a time. Pick a coach, pick your systems, and stick with them. In KC right now, defensively for example, we have the remnants of players chosen for four very different defensive schemes. All those changes have made fielding a strong defense impossible-and now a top flight offense has gotten too old. There's a lesson here. Pick a good coach. Pick a solid system, and stick with them.

2. You have to strike gold in the late rounds of the draft with a pro bowl player or two at a premium position. With the salary cap, you cannot field a BALANCED championship caliber team without finding some diamonds in the rough. Even then, you have a window to get it done before the big contracts start rolling in.

Exhibition one: Terrell Davis. 6th round. It was Elway's team, but it was Davis that won 'em two rings.

Exhibition two: Tom Brady. 5th round pick. Now he's getting paid, and while they're still good (consistency) they're well short of dominant.

Exhibition three: Kurt Warner. scrap heap. Probably could've got it done with Green (who wasn't a big dollar guy at the time) but that's the way it played out. Maybe the ultimate system guy.

There are more, but that's enough to make the point.

3. If you must be dominant in one area, defense is the area that can get you a ring.

See the 2202-2005 Chiefs, and Manning era Colts. The Ravens won one with NO offense, and Pittsburgh won last year because the defense played well and the conservative offense hid weak points like a rookie QB. Tampa Bay, same difference. As good as Brady is/was, it was New England's defense that put them in those SB's, IMO. Other people must feel the same way, as most of those coaching staffs are now leading other franchises.

4. The way to build successful football teams is from the line out. NO blocking makes any QB and RB combination look like shit. No pass rush, penetration, or control of the line of scrimmage makes any defensive system look like shit. Show me any team with a dominant front four and a good offensive line and I'll show you a perennial play-off team. I chuckle at the draft every year when bad teams draft QB's, RB's, and WR's when they are weak at the line. Why are the Raiders so bad? Because WR was not a problem area, but that's where they've spent their money for years. The Lions? same thing. Hell, we haven't had top flight WR's for years, and we were the number 1 offense in football. Why? Because we had a dominant offensive line. Now Roaf is gone, Shields is done, we're very average on the line and we go 3 and out 7 straight series in a play-off game. It's not even that Green can't get it done anymore (although that may be true) or the receivers suck (which is pretty much true) or that Solari needs to be a better play-caller (also true). It's that for four years, we could do whatever we wanted because our line was good enough to dominate and impose their will. 3 perennial pro-bowlers out of 5. If only one of the DT's we drafted would've worked out...

So, how do I think this relates to Kansas City...

well, I think we're headed in the right direction defensively. I think we should stick with the cover 2 system and continue to gather the correct personnel to run it. You've got to keep your young ascending players and let the old guys walk. I think we're 3 guys away, personally, two DT's and one OLB. It's possible that we're 2, and that Fox is an answer at LB. Herm's had luck in the past with late round CB's, and I hope that trend continues, because Law and Surtain will need replacing soon.

Offensively, we need to free up money and concentrate on the line. We don't need new coaches and new systems and a flashy new FA wide receiver with a big price tag. We don't need Trent Green if he's gonna cost us $8 million a year. Let him walk, re-sign Huard for less than half for a year and let Croyle be your #2. We need to rebuild that offensive line, and we need to do it with draftees and young-ish FA's. OT is a premium position (particularly LT), but G and possible C are not. This can be done. A dominant offensive line, LJ, and a top 5 defense is a Super Bowl. I'm on the fence with Gonzales as he's such a useful target and would be for Huard and then Croyle in '08. Depends on the OT market, I guess.

I don't know that I'd draft anything but DT's and Offensive linemen this year. Seriously. Nobody's going to be successful anyway if those positions are not shored up.

Those are my thoughts, and I'm sticking to them.

Chris

Simplex3
01-09-2007, 02:21 PM
.

Douche Baggins
01-09-2007, 02:26 PM
Consistency is the key...that's why Herm needs to be here for a long, long time. At least five years and preferably 10.

crazycoffey
01-09-2007, 02:27 PM
.

Good one

Dick Bull
01-09-2007, 02:28 PM
.


that's some funny shit right there, I don't care who you are

Douche Baggins
01-09-2007, 02:28 PM
A dominant offensive line, LJ, and a top 5 defense is a Super Bowl.

:clap:

Warrior5
01-09-2007, 02:44 PM
A dominant offensive line, LJ, and a top 5 defense is a Super Bowl. I'm on the fence with Gonzales as he's such a useful target and would be for Huard and then Croyle in '08. Depends on the OT market, I guess.

If you have those pieces in place, the organization won't have to flash big $ to get quality FAs. They'll want to come play for a team that has the foundation in place for a championship.

Unfortunately, I don't think the Chiefs will be able to build that foundation for at least a year, so patience and a logical plan are in order.

siberian khatru
01-09-2007, 02:50 PM
All good, but No. 4 is the money graf.

siberian khatru
01-09-2007, 02:52 PM
BTW, I'm prepared to be mediocre at best next year.

I think this is at least a 2-year project -- and that assumes we get Year 1 (this offseason) right. We have so many holes to fill that I don't think we can get all those players in one offseason.

wutamess
01-09-2007, 02:54 PM
Great Quality post.
Followed with stats/examples.

Chiefnj
01-09-2007, 02:57 PM
"We don't need new coaches and new systems and a flashy new FA wide receiver with a big price tag."

I have to strongly disagree with the coaching and systems part of your opinion. The playcalling and lack of adjustments at times this year were putrid. Herm is not a Super Bowl caliber coach.

Baby Lee
01-09-2007, 02:59 PM
Consistently applied and taught approach
Diamonds in the rough
Dominant D
Build the lines first


I have no truck with this analysis.

Man Law!!! :thumb:

KCJohnny
01-09-2007, 03:04 PM
Consistently applied and taught approach
Diamonds in the rough
Dominant D
Build the lines first


I have no truck with this analysis.

Man Law!!! :thumb:

Funny, ya got people denouncing this formulae as "Martyball" on other threads. Fact is, Marty had us right there just about every season.
:shrug:

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-09-2007, 03:18 PM
...that's why Herm needs to be here for a long, long time. At least five years and preferably 10.

And that's why you're a f*cking moron

Baby Lee
01-09-2007, 03:20 PM
Funny, ya got people denouncing this formulae as "Martyball" on other threads. Fact is, Marty had us right there just about every season.
:shrug:
Shhh!! People might start calling me a Marty fan. ROFL

Halfcan
01-09-2007, 03:26 PM
Step one" Start with a good coach-WHOOPS!

Chris Meck
01-09-2007, 05:30 PM
Well, I don't think you can base EVERYTHING on the Colts game.

I do think it tended to underline some key weaknesses, though.

It's not like we NEVER scored any points, or ever had effective games through the air.

Additionally, no Roaf (and no time to find an adequate replacement), no Welbourne (and not worth a shit when he came back), Green getting knocked out, new systems, etc. I thought overall, not a bad job of getting a team through all that and into the play-offs.

It's still clear that we need DT's, and it's clear that our O-line needs revamping.

It's also clear that there is a lot of room for improvement in playcalling.

but it's all do-able, IMO.

Chris

Silock
01-09-2007, 05:50 PM
Excellent post.

FringeNC
01-09-2007, 06:06 PM
Ever think that perhaps the causality runs the other way? You win a SB and get tenure?


And even comparing Belichick to Herm is ridiculous. They are polar opposites. Belichick is calm, cerebral guy who plays agressive on both sides of the ball. Herm Edwards is a motivator who plays basic schemes and plays not to lose.

Belichick is all about substance; Herm is all about style and emotion.

Zouk
01-09-2007, 06:33 PM
Awesome post.

One thing I would add to this equation is that you should be top 10 in the league in special teams.

That's why the guy that should have been fired today is not Mike Solari but Mike Priefer. Our kick coverage units were below average and our kick return units were putrid. Coaching makes all the difference on specials.

Silock
01-09-2007, 06:37 PM
Ever think that perhaps the causality runs the other way? You win a SB and get tenure?

How many Superbowls did Cowher win to obtain tenure?

Delano
01-09-2007, 06:43 PM
... That's why the guy that should have been fired today is not Mike Solari but Mike Priefer. Our kick coverage units were below average and our kick return units were putrid. Coaching makes all the difference on specials.

I am confused. Did I miss a big headline today?

Zouk
01-09-2007, 06:46 PM
I am confused. Did I miss a big headline today?

No man, sorry. I meant people were calling for firing Mike Solari (and Herm, obviously) today , not that he was.

Chiefnj
01-09-2007, 07:14 PM
It's not like we NEVER scored any points, or ever had effective games through the air.



I think you have to go back 20+ years to find a Chiefs offense that scored 1 TD or less (not including FG's) as many times as this team did; 7 games - almost half the season.

TipRoast
01-09-2007, 08:43 PM
Minor correction: Brady was a 6th round draft pick, not a 5th.

One thing you didn't mention was the importance of being able to reload every year. As soon as your team gets to the top, you'll start losing people, both players and assistant coaches. You really can't stop it based on the way free agency is designed (player movement) and assistant coaches contracts are written (they can always interview if the new position is a promotion). So you need to have a pipeline in place - a good GM, great scouts, and the philosophy that what your organization does is teach people how to play and coach winning football. And you need to be a master of the cap, and be ruthless in evaluating exactly how much a player is worth, and when to let someone walk, even if he's a fan favorite.

If you can do all that, you can succeed in the current version of the NFL.

milkman
01-09-2007, 09:37 PM
I'm not sure how valid your point about coaching is.

Most of the coaches in the last 20 years, 25 years, won a SB within 3-4 years of taking on the job.

Dick won his within 3 years of taking the Rams job.

The Pats won theirs in Belichick's 2nd year.

Cowher is really an exception.

patteeu
01-09-2007, 09:39 PM
All good, but No. 4 is the money graf.

I agree with Mr. Khatru.

milkman
01-09-2007, 09:39 PM
Awesome post.

One thing I would add to this equation is that you should be top 10 in the league in special teams.

That's why the guy that should have been fired today is not Mike Solari but Mike Priefer. Our kick coverage units were below average and our kick return units were putrid. Coaching makes all the difference on specials.

My memory may be failing me here, so I may be wrong, but I thought the Pats had some fairly mediocre ST's in one or two of their SB years.

tk13
01-09-2007, 09:55 PM
My memory may be failing me here, so I may be wrong, but I thought the Pats had some fairly mediocre ST's in one or two of their SB years.
I'm not sure they've ever had great punting, but they've definitely had great field goal kicking... I don't recall them ever getting gashed real bad on special teams. I remember when they played us a couple years ago in 2004, Belichick supposedly reserved an entire film session during the week specifically toward covering Dante.

milkman
01-10-2007, 08:48 AM
I'm not sure they've ever had great punting, but they've definitely had great field goal kicking... I don't recall them ever getting gashed real bad on special teams. I remember when they played us a couple years ago in 2004, Belichick supposedly reserved an entire film session during the week specifically toward covering Dante.

I don't know, cause, as I said, my memory is a little fuzzy, but I seem to recall in at least one of their SB years some discussion that their coverage units were among the lowest ranked in the league.

B_Ambuehl
01-10-2007, 11:00 AM
4. The way to build successful football teams is from the line out. NO blocking makes any QB and RB combination look like shit. No pass rush, penetration, or control of the line of scrimmage makes any defensive system look like shit. Show me any team with a dominant front four and a good offensive line and I'll show you a perennial play-off team. I chuckle at the draft every year when bad teams draft QB's, RB's, and WR's when they are weak at the line. Why are the Raiders so bad? Because WR was not a problem area, but that's where they've spent their money for years. The Lions? same thing. Hell, we haven't had top flight WR's for years, and we were the number 1 offense in football. Why? Because we had a dominant offensive line. Now Roaf is gone, Shields is done, we're very average on the line and we go 3 and out 7 straight series in a play-off game. It's not even that Green can't get it done anymore (although that may be true) or the receivers suck (which is pretty much true) or that Solari needs to be a better play-caller (also true). It's that for four years, we could do whatever we wanted because our line was good enough to dominate and impose their will. 3 perennial pro-bowlers out of 5. If only one of the DT's we drafted would've worked out...

So, how do I think this relates to Kansas City...

well, I think we're headed in the right direction defensively. I think we should stick with the cover 2 system and continue to gather the correct personnel to run it. You've got to keep your young ascending players and let the old guys walk. I think we're 3 guys away, personally, two DT's and one OLB. It's possible that we're 2, and that Fox is an answer at LB. Herm's had luck in the past with late round CB's, and I hope that trend continues, because Law and Surtain will need replacing soon.

Offensively, we need to free up money and concentrate on the line. We don't need new coaches and new systems and a flashy new FA wide receiver with a big price tag. We don't need Trent Green if he's gonna cost us $8 million a year. Let him walk, re-sign Huard for less than half for a year and let Croyle be your #2. We need to rebuild that offensive line, and we need to do it with draftees and young-ish FA's. OT is a premium position (particularly LT), but G and possible C are not. This can be done. A dominant offensive line, LJ, and a top 5 defense is a Super Bowl. I'm on the fence with Gonzales as he's such a useful target and would be for Huard and then Croyle in '08. Depends on the OT market, I guess.

I don't know that I'd draft anything but DT's and Offensive linemen this year. Seriously. Nobody's going to be successful anyway if those positions are not shored up.

Those are my thoughts, and I'm sticking to them.

Word brother! Look at the Jets last year...lost all their superstars on defense, spent 2 first day picks on offensive lineman and made the playoffs.

Mecca
01-10-2007, 11:07 AM
Word brother! Look at the Jets last year...lost all their superstars on defense, spent 2 first day picks on offensive lineman and made the playoffs.

That's all well and good when you got 2 first rounders....one being top 5 to take the best LT in the draft.

Dick Bull
01-10-2007, 11:11 AM
That's all well and good when you got 2 first rounders....one being top 5 to take the best LT in the draft.

hey thats easy to do Right now trade will shields for a 1st rounder (he'll retire any way)

That's the way it works on madden

Mecca
01-10-2007, 11:15 AM
hey thats easy to do Right now trade will shields for a 1st rounder (he'll retire any way)

That's the way it works on madden

HAHA yea, I think alot of people don't understand what you can do on madden doesn't apply to life.

You could get a top 5 pick for Trent Green.....in real life you might get a 5th rounder.

Amnorix
01-10-2007, 11:16 AM
Word brother! Look at the Jets last year...lost all their superstars on defense, spent 2 first day picks on offensive lineman and made the playoffs.

Not to be difficult, but...

1. Ferguson was relatively lousy this year (10 sacks allowed, I read in one paper)

2. Pennington and EVERY backup QB they had being hurt is what killed them last year.

3. They were a good team for the 3 or so years before last year, so what's the aberration? Last year or this year?

4. They had the just about the softest schedule in the AFC this year, and a much tougher one last year.

5. The only star they lost on defense was Abraham.

milkman
01-10-2007, 11:18 AM
That's all well and good when you got 2 first rounders....one being top 5 to take the best LT in the draft.

Right.

Where we're picking, you take the best player available, regardless of position, with the possible exception of RB, and given LJ's workload, that really shouldn't be out of the equation.

Amnorix
01-10-2007, 11:19 AM
My memory may be failing me here, so I may be wrong, but I thought the Pats had some fairly mediocre ST's in one or two of their SB years.

No. In 2001 they were great, and a catalyst for our championship.

in '03 and '04, they were merely good enough. Not great, but definitely not mediocre.

You're probably thinking of our punter, Ken Walter, who DID suck. But a below average punter doesn't mean the entire STs suck. He was good at pinning opponents inside the 20, but couldn't launch a boomer to save his life.

milkman
01-10-2007, 11:24 AM
No. In 2001 they were great, and a catalyst for our championship.

in '03 and '04, they were merely good enough. Not great, but definitely not mediocre.

You're probably thinking of our punter, Ken Walter, who DID suck. But a below average punter doesn't mean the entire STs suck. He was good at pinning opponents inside the 20, but couldn't launch a boomer to save his life.

I have to take full credit for a bad memory.

I wasn't thinking of the punter.

Fairplay
01-10-2007, 11:24 AM
According to our draft experts on here, there won't be any quality O line men when we pick.

And others say there aren't any free agents on O line to pick up.

That tells me that we will still suck next season.

Douche Baggins
01-10-2007, 11:26 AM
The best LT was McNeil. Where did Marty draft him, second round? I hope we didn't pick Pollard instead of McNeil.

Douche Baggins
01-10-2007, 11:27 AM
Wow. He really did give up 10 sacks. That's horrible.

Almost as bad as Jordan Black...he gave up 13!!!! LMAO

Mecca
01-10-2007, 11:29 AM
The best LT was McNeil. Where did Marty draft him, second round? I hope we didn't pick Pollard instead of McNeil.

Nah the Chargers were 1 pick before us.........although we took Pollard instead of Ko Simpson who looks like a very solid young safety....

scott free
01-10-2007, 11:30 AM
One of the best posts i've seen in a good long while Chris. I agree with every diggity dang 'ol point.

It ALL starts with the BIG BOYS up front.

MahiMike
01-10-2007, 11:34 AM
Chris, very good, well-thought-out post. I agree with some of it, not with others. For instance:

1. It seems to me that consistency is a major key to franchises that are successful year in and year out.

"Can't disagree here. I think another word is balance. The Patriots are the most balanced team and that's why they're there every year. You can argue defense-minded vs offense-minded but the point is, it's better to simply be ranked top 10 on both sides. Chiefs and Colts proved they've concentrated too much on one side or the other."

2. You have to strike gold in the late rounds of the draft with a pro bowl player or two at a premium position.

"Agreed. But I've always felt the draft is way overrated. It's a lottery. No team is sure their ticket will be worth a damn until they see the kid play in the NFL."

3. If you must be dominant in one area, defense is the area that can get you a ring.

"Sorry but I disagree here. I'd still rather have a team that can come back from 14 points down when they need to. A turnover here or there throws out the whole game plan for defensive-minded teams."

4. The way to build successful football teams is from the line out.

"Exactly! Linemen should be 75% of what a team drafts. These guys are the easiest to evaluate and the most important. It's the skill guys you need to get via free agency. Never even think about drafting a QB!"

What's this all mean for KC? Nothing I'm afraid. As long as the organization is controlled by the current administration, it's as futile as winning a war in the middle east. Just ain't gonna happen.

This team has been tweaking their lineup for 10 years and the guys on this team have seen too many systems come and go. A clean sweep needs to happen. We need to experience a couple 4-12 seasons before climbing back up. Without them, and without change at the top, the proverbial 9 win disappointment will continue to be an annual event.

RJ
01-10-2007, 11:35 AM
Chris Meck, that's a really well thought out post, I agree with you on almost every point. Especially this.....

If only one of the DT's we drafted would've worked out...


We're going to be forced to use picks and FA $ at that position because of the failures from past drafts, money and picks that we could use elsewhere.

milkman
01-10-2007, 11:44 AM
Never even think about drafting a QB!"

Yeah, the 49ers should never have drafted Montana.
The Cowboys should never have thought about drafting Aikman.
The Patriots should never have wasted a 5th round pick on Brady.
The Bengals blew any chance they had of ever seeing any success when they drafted Palmer.

MahiMike
01-10-2007, 12:19 PM
Yeah, the 49ers should never have drafted Montana.
The Cowboys should never have thought about drafting Aikman.
The Patriots should never have wasted a 5th round pick on Brady.
The Bengals blew any chance they had of ever seeing any success when they drafted Palmer.

Nice try. But for everyone of these guys, there are 5 Blackledges. Still rather get a proven guy at the most important position.

Amnorix
01-10-2007, 12:27 PM
Yeah, the 49ers should never have drafted Montana.
The Cowboys should never have thought about drafting Aikman.
The Patriots should never have wasted a 5th round pick on Brady.
The Bengals blew any chance they had of ever seeing any success when they drafted Palmer.

6th round pick on Brady, just for the record.

the main issue here is that it's relatively easy to get an "okay" or "serviceable" QB via free agency, but a guy like Drew Brees or another very good / great QB comes onto FA very, very rarely.

Peyton Manning, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, etc. can only be had through the draft.

Sure, every once in a great while a retread becomes great (Trent Green and Gannon come to mind) but even then, it's usually only for a short space of time. You want a top player at the position for 10 years -- it'd better be through the draft.

milkman
01-10-2007, 12:39 PM
Nice try. But for everyone of these guys, there are 5 Blackledges. Still rather get a proven guy at the most important position.

Let's just go back to '90.

Joe Montana vs. John Elway
Jeff Hostetler vs. Jim Kelly
Mark Rypien vs. Jim Kelly
Troy Aikman vs. Jim Kelly
Troy Aikman vs. Jim Kelly
Joe Montana vs. Stan Humphrey
Troy Aikman vs. Neil O'Donnell
Brett Favre vs. Drew Bledsoe
John Elway vs. Brett Favre
John Elway vs. Chris Miller
Kurt Warner vs. Steve McNair
Trent Dilfer vs. Kerry Collins
Tom Brady vs. Kurt Warner
Brad Johnson vs. Rich Gannon
Tom Brady vs. Jake Delhomme
Tom Brady vs. Donovan McNabb
Ben Rothlesberger vs. Matt Hasselback

Yep, I can see how those "proven" guys can really make a difference. :rolleyes:

milkman
01-10-2007, 12:40 PM
6th round pick on Brady, just for the record.

the main issue here is that it's relatively easy to get an "okay" or "serviceable" QB via free agency, but a guy like Drew Brees or another very good / great QB comes onto FA very, very rarely.

Peyton Manning, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, etc. can only be had through the draft.

Sure, every once in a great while a retread becomes great (Trent Green and Gannon come to mind) but even then, it's usually only for a short space of time. You want a top player at the position for 10 years -- it'd better be through the draft.

Exactly.

Bill Parcells
01-10-2007, 12:44 PM
Let's just go back to '90.

Joe Montana vs. John Elway
Jeff Hostetler vs. Jim Kelly
Mark Rypien vs. Jim Kelly
Troy Aikman vs. Jim Kelly
Troy Aikman vs. Jim Kelly
Joe Montana vs. Stan Humphrey
Troy Aikman vs. Neil O'Donnell
Brett Favre vs. Drew Bledsoe
John Elway vs. Brett Favre
John Elway vs. Chris Miller
Kurt Warner vs. Steve McNair
Trent Dilfer vs. Kerry Collins
Tom Brady vs. Kurt Warner
Brad Johnson vs. Rich Gannon
Tom Brady vs. Jake Delhomme
Tom Brady vs. Donovan McNabb
Ben Rothlesberger vs. Matt Hasselback

Yep, I can see how those "proven" guys can really make a difference. :rolleyes:
Every team with a mediocre QB that has won the Super Bowl had 2 things..a great defense or defensive scheme and a great running game..1990 Giants..the Redskins..the Ravens..etc..

milkman
01-10-2007, 12:51 PM
Every team with a mediocre QB that has won the Super Bowl had 2 things..a great defense or defensive scheme and a great running game..1990 Giants..the Redskins..the Ravens..etc..

With only a couple of exceptions, all those QBs were either drafted or developed, or both, by their respective teams.

Not even a handful of them were "proven" before they joined the teams they went to a SB with.

htismaqe
01-10-2007, 01:04 PM
All the more reason to go with Croyle!

FringeNC
01-10-2007, 01:20 PM
Consistency is the key...that's why Herm needs to be here for a long, long time. At least five years and preferably 10.

Consistency is most certainly not the key. We've consistently had Carl Peterson for the last 13 years consistently, and consistently have not won a playoff game.

In fact, the Chiefs are the prime example of why you need some turnover. Carl has become entrenched and is lazy.

It's so obvious -- good coaches are around a long time because they are good coaches, not because being around a long time makes them good coaches.

Chris Meck
01-10-2007, 05:18 PM
I don't think that's true.

While there have certainly been some blunders, a lot of things that didn't work out...well, just haven't worked out.

Everyone wants to slam Sylvester Morris, but do you realize that he had more catches as a rookie than Terrell Owens did? Look it up. 48 catches. something like almost 900 yards. Not bad for a rook, not bad at all.
Nobody could foresee a career ending knee injury.

It's only a bad pick in hindsight, after the knee injury.

I'm not a huge Carl fan; but reaching for just anything to slam him is juvenile. For the last time, CARL PETERSON DID NOT DRAFT TODD BLACKLEDGE. That was the '83 draft, and Carl did not get here until '89.

Letting Tait go was not a blunder-Chicago way, way overpaid to get him. It's unfortunate that we've not been able to fill his spot, but we should NOT have matched that offer. He's flat NOT worth that kind of money.

Bringing Green here was not a mistake, nor was Priest Holmes, nor was Roaf, nor was drafting Will Shields, Tony Gonzales, Jared Allen, Derrick Johnson, Hali, etc. The problem is that we wasted too many picks on DT's that didn't pan out and in the meantime, the offense got old.

Unfortunate, but it wasn't from lack of trying, and it's not like everyone didn't think Sims was going to be a great player. Nobody considered it a reach. He just sucks. He didn't translate to the pro game.

Chris

B_Ambuehl
01-10-2007, 06:52 PM
Not to be difficult, but...

1. Ferguson was relatively lousy this year (10 sacks allowed, I read in one paper)

2. Pennington and EVERY backup QB they had being hurt is what killed them last year.

3. They were a good team for the 3 or so years before last year, so what's the aberration? Last year or this year?

4. They had the just about the softest schedule in the AFC this year, and a much tougher one last year.

5. The only star they lost on defense was Abraham.

Ferguson could've given up 3 more sacks and still not have been as bad as Black. The point is the team lost Kevin Mawae, had a quarterback with a busted shoudler, no running game whatsoever...they went out and drafted a tackle and center and their offense was fine.

They were a good team with John Abraham, Kevin Mawae, Curtis Martin, Jason Ferguson, and Wayne Chrebet. They lost all those dudes and Ty Law off last years team, got rid of Herm, were projected to finish last in the AFC, drafted a coupel of o-lineman and made the playoffs.

I really hope Herm doesn't suck that bad. :)