View Full Version : Aikman or Buerline?
03-15-2001, 08:37 AM
First I want to comment on the appearant fact that we aren't going to sign Green...
So now I've decided to start a poll, would you guys prefer Aikman or Buerline? Aikman is a proven winner, but he is also a cracked egg. Buerline has never won the big one, but he comes from an offense that made good use of their tight end (Wesly Walls). I think they both have their ups and downs, so I say we take the cheapest one.
03-15-2001, 08:43 AM
What is Buerline's track record as far as team leadership and respect?
Also, how is he as far as reading Defenses? I feel comfortable with Troy's ability here, and I think this will be a necessary skill in our new O.
not knowing much about buerline...
03-15-2001, 08:49 AM
I also don't know much about Buerline. Is he injury prone? How old is he? Does he throw short and precise or is he a long ball kind of guy?
Are there any Cheif fans in Carolina that can clue us in?
03-15-2001, 08:52 AM
Correction, we havn't signed Green yet....
I would prefer Aikman...he has the necessary talents to lead the new offense...his accuracy is better which will be the most important aspect of our offense...he's a proven leader, I think the players would feel better around him and have more respect for him...
Buerling would probably be cheaper though....
As far as the Green thing goes...the advantage has swung to us...Green has agreed to defer the bonus until a deal is worked out...if the Rams want that 1.5 mill in cap space they'll cave...if not...we get Aikman or Beurline...
03-15-2001, 09:04 AM
Actually Joe, I read that they went ahead and paid the $500,000 bonus because they believed a deal was not going to get done. I think I read it on www.theredzone.org.
But I don't want to turn this into another Green thread.
I think I would go with Aikman also. With our natural grass and excellent o-line, I think he might actually make it through a whole season. If we do get Aikman, we better have a decent backup. Maybe we can pick up Green as a back up after the ram-rods cut him because they don't have enough room to sign their rookies, let alone any free agents.
03-15-2001, 09:04 AM
I think Chris Mortensen provided excellent analysis in his column the other day:
He discusses Aikman and Beurelein towards the end of the article.
gonzo- he also mentions Aikman is 34 and Beuerlein is 36.
I cannot in good conscience encourage in any way Aikman's plan to concuss himself to death or vegetable status.
Aikman would be the better choice, but I have to go with Beuerline.
considering an intervention for Aikman.
03-15-2001, 09:10 AM
If Aikman is truly healthy, I think he brings more to the table than anyone - Green included. He has enormous leadership skills. He has a great arm. The Chiefs have a strong offensive line. He has superior and big receivers. All we'd have to do is find him a running back and we're looking at a pretty powerful offense right out of the gate.
And we'd have all of our draft choices to work on the defense.
Reminds me a lot of when Joe Montana came with his damaged wing. But Troy would have a much more talented team than the one inherited by Montana.
If he checks out, I'd go for him in a heartbeat. But I'd also hedge my bets and sign either Banks or Dilfer for the No. 2 position.
03-15-2001, 09:15 AM
Aikman, for 2 reasons.
1) He's been a winner before
2) I really think he'll come cheaper, because the market for him isn't strong.
Our line will protect Aikman better, and remember, Dallas began to go downhill when Novacek retired; Gonzo will be the best TE he's ever had, plus he'll have top-notch receivers to throw deep to.
Beurline, at best, is a journeyman who can fill a hole for a couple years. He has decent skills, but his decision making abilities are Grbac-esque.He's a waste, IMO.
03-15-2001, 09:17 AM
Thanks spe_725, That is a good article.
03-15-2001, 09:19 AM
All I can say is that if we go with Aikman or Buerlein...Collins has to be #2 and we HAVE to draft a QB that we think will be the man in 2 or 3 years...we MUST be able to develope a QBOTF...I don't care who it is...we have to give him a shot at being the starter within 2 or 3 years....
Gaz, while I would hate to see Aikman "vegitized" If he wants to play, he would be much better off with us on a natural grass field and with our better then average OL...
That is true. I just cannot believe that a guy who has suffered 10 concussions is foolish enough to risk his brain again. Perhaps he does not fully understand the concept of a concussion. Of course, given the number of concussions he has had, daylight savings time is probably beyond him.
From purely football perspective, Aikman is the better choice.
But the specter of Aikman lying on the turf, brains leaking out his ears, while the commentators mouth platitudes is just to awful. Call me a sissy and Iíll not complain, but I donít want Aikmanís damaged brain to suffer any more damage in the R&G.
unable to reach objectivity on this issue.
03-15-2001, 09:32 AM
If the price is right, gotta go with Aikman. His agent says he's been evaluated, and his MRI was negative (supposedly no "white spots" indicating damage), so until I see something different, I have to assume he's ready to play. He's not as good as he once was, but IMHO I believe him to be our best option now.
[Edited by gh4chiefs on 03-15-2001 at 10:41 AM]
03-15-2001, 09:35 AM
Aikman...that's a healthy Troy Boy BTW. Better leadership,experence,play making decision QB that EG or SB ever dreamed of. If in fact he is healthy enough,can we ,do we really want to pay him the $$$$ he would want. If resonable,yes,sign him ...period,Collins as backup and draft a talented QBOTF for Troy Boy to groom.
This is the best approach we can go at this time....IMHO.
Yes the cracked egg part is scary.....but so was Joe Montana too....He had ?'s about his health too !
BTW......this gives us a chance to straighten out the Defense with the remaining pic's we have left.
Oh crap...you say HB.......Garner or Holmes.....Time to draft defense with this plan !
Still want Dan Morgan......#12......We need to give up Bush and Grey and swap pic's with someone else to move up to Morgan!
[Edited by ROYC75 on 03-15-2001 at 10:38 AM]
03-15-2001, 09:36 AM
Let us not forget that if it were Steve Young's decision(instead of his wife's), he'd still be playing. I also remember reading last month that Curt Warner was still having trouble with his concussion he got in DECEMBER, which may or may not be a hidden reason stopping the Green deal.
Also, Eric Lindros is a walking concussion, playing a much more physically violent sport, but I don't ever hear anyone asking for him to retire because of concussions(Although his own brother did retire due to concussions).
I think Troy would be fine here. Heck, I think Steve Young would too, but I doubt that will happen.
03-15-2001, 09:44 AM
I wonder how long we toy with the Green idea before we start seriously consider Aikman or Beuerlein?...from what I've read, we can't do much in the way of FAs until the QB position is filled...I wish Carl or DV or the Rams would just cave or flat out say "No Way, No How" and get on with it...if we Grbac around too long we won't get anyone...
I did read that Holmes is willing to be patient and not rush into signing with any of the other teams he's been to visit...why do I get the feeling that he wants to play here and is willing to wait for the opportunity?...
03-15-2001, 09:44 AM
My gut says Beuerline. I know he's 36, and was sacked alot, but here's his 2000 stats for anyone interested:
G ATT CMP CP% YDS AVG TDs INT RAT
16 533 324 60.8 3730 7.0 19 18 79.7
INT/TD ratio is scary, but involves alot of other factors.
3730 yds ain't shabby.
Overall, better 2000 stats than Aikman, probably cheaper, and not a concussion waiting to happen.
03-15-2001, 09:47 AM
You bring up an interesting point. The question is whose responsibility is it to decide when a player retires?? If Aikman wants to play, do all of the teams in the NFL have a moral responsibility to not offer him the chance due to his health?? Thats a hell of a call to make. I wouldn't like to see Aikman suffer serious damage in Red and Gold any worse than you would. I this day and age of the NFL, I just don't see any team making a personnel decision because it's the "right thing to do".
So, IMHO, if the man wants to play, and the doctors clear him, I say it's his decision to make. If something bad does happen, the responsibility should fall on the player for wanting to continue to play. The team that signed him shouldn't be held accountable for his decision.
As far as the actual question goes, I like Buerlein. He went to the pro bowl a couple years back, and would be a good stop gap for a couple years while we groom the QBOTF.
03-15-2001, 09:49 AM
except for the TD/INT ratio and his age...his stats are comparable to another QB that I use to like...who is now a scared piece of **** Crow...:mad: yes, still bitter...
03-15-2001, 10:14 AM
Holmes probably wants to play here because he's only getting interest from us, the Eagles, and Cleveland.
In Philly, he'd be a backup. In Cleveland, he'd be a cellar-dweller.
He's suffered from being in a RBBC situation of sorts since he got to Baltimore. I'll bet DV told him he'd be KC's version of Marshall Faulk.
Take all that into consideration, and now do you see why Holmes would want to play here pretty bad?
03-15-2001, 10:31 AM
Aikman: 1. Has won 3 Super Bowls; 2. can still throw it; 3. proven leader; 4. good accuracty; 5. good person to groom QBOTF; 6. chics dig him; 7. has had 10 concussions and probably doesn't remember the first 6 on this list.
Burlein: 1. has played a long time in the NFL with few injuries; 2. makes the most of his talent; 3. good mobility at age 36; 4. decent arm; 5. good accuracy; 6. probably inexepensive; 7. doesn't always find the right team to throw it to.
This is almost a push ... but the concussion thing does it for me. One would think that Troy would want to play for a team that can take him to a SB sometime soon, thus giving the elusive 4th SB ring for a QB (Montana and Bradshaw being the only other two that have won that many at QB position ... I think.) Maybe he thinks that he can? Burlein, on the other hand, would probably just be happy to play if Carolina doesn't want him.
My pick is Burlein due to Troy's concussions.
~~Likes a QB that knows who and where he is at all times.
03-15-2001, 10:39 AM
How do you know Buerline knows where he is at all times? I've never had a concussion, and I don't know where I am at all times? ;)
03-15-2001, 10:41 AM
I would have to say Aikman. I say that not knowing what it would cost to bring in Aikman. What I do know is that nobody seems to be balking at paying Beuerlein 100M+. I would never pay that for Beuerlein.
03-15-2001, 10:47 AM
LOL!! I have had a concussion and let me say it takes some time to get un-groggied. I can't imagine having 10 of the damn things. (and if I ever find the prick who rear-ended my truck and ran, my skinny foot is going in his a$$! :mad: ) Concussions are nothing to fool with.
You can't be serious ... the guy is asking for $100 mill? If that's the case, I say sign neither and let Collins play.
~~Thought Burlein would come cheaper than the GNP of some countries.
03-15-2001, 10:48 AM
Who suggested paying $100 million for Beurline?
More importantly, what are they either smoking or drinking?
I would like some, please.
03-15-2001, 10:51 AM
I did see something about Mark Brunell seeking $100 million, but even he's not worth it, IMO.
03-15-2001, 11:00 AM
If Aikman is signed, is articulate during his press conf., passes his physical, looks good during minicamp, training camp, etc who wouldnt be excited to have him? 3 SuperBowl rings? We keep the 12th overall? Sign me up. If the only question mark is his history of concussions and doctors clear him to play with no more risk of injury than anyone else who plays in the NFL, I don't see how Aikman is not the first choice.
03-15-2001, 11:00 AM
That makes sense. If Burlein is looking for $100mill, then they're not just smoking it, they're drinking the bong water.
~~Knows that bong water is neither tasty nor aromatic.
03-15-2001, 11:06 AM
While I do see your point (and would not be terribly upset if the Chiefs signed Aikman) I would cringe every time he got sacked, tackled or pushed OB. I just don't see it as being a good investment if there is a chance that he might suffer yet another concussion and we' re forced to go to the backup.
I would just like to see someone ... well, less squishy between the ears.
~~Sees cognitive ability as crucial in the QB spot ... of course, he was a Grbacker, so ... ;)
03-15-2001, 11:16 AM
....drinking the bong water.....
That thought's gonna be with me all day.
I have to agree with Mr. Blonde on this. Sign Aikman, keep the #1, groom a young QB.
03-15-2001, 11:23 AM
When it come to QB's with question marks, Aikman has less than any available. At least Aikmans can be answered to some degree by a doctor before signing him.l
03-15-2001, 11:23 AM
Buerlein's not asking for $100 million, Mark Brunell is.
03-15-2001, 11:23 AM
Better the thought than the smell. ;) Ahh ... memories
Okay, I guess we need to re-focus here ...
Does anyone know if Aikman or Burlein have even visited with the Chiefs? Anyone know their approximate asking price?
~~Trying to redirect this thread back on-topic.
[Edited by Mark M on 03-15-2001 at 12:28 PM]
03-15-2001, 11:32 AM
That's good I thought I had seen someone post that Buerleins asking price was 100M. I guess I was spreading a bad rumor. SORRY GUYS. He is supposed to be in pretty bad shape right now isn't he? Can he even make it to camp?
03-15-2001, 11:36 AM
Well, he's what... 36 years old. I'm thinking back six years ago when I was 36, and if it was me... no I couldn't make it to camp. Hell, I would hurt after playing golf, let alone football.
03-15-2001, 11:50 AM
At this point I am leaning towards Aikman. Doctors have cleared him to play. He could be very cap friendly. The Cowboys are still due to pay him 10 million this year. Here is an article that gives a little more insight on why Jerry Jones let him go.
<a href=http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news/ap/20010308/ap-cowboys-startingover.html>Waiving Aikman start of a new era for Cowboys</a>
Sounds more like a cap decision for the future.
03-15-2001, 12:00 PM
Good link, but the thing that worries me is this line:
But Aikman's desire to find another job, despite serious health risks ...
~~Still thinks that it's an issue.
03-15-2001, 12:35 PM
I'm just going to have to trust Aikman's doctors on his health. If they were hinting anything that he should not play, I would say no to bringing him here.
I wouldn't mind seeing Beuerlein brought in as Troy's backup. I wonder if CP could pull that off.
03-15-2001, 01:37 PM
If the Chiefs set up an appointment with one of their Dr.'s and they okayed him to play, then I too would be in favor of it. I guess I just don't trust a Dr. who is a Cowboys fan. ;)
Having had just one concussion, I guess I just don't see how 10 of them can't make a difference. Of course, I didn't go to medical school, just have a lump on the back of my noggin.
~~Has a skull with "character."
03-15-2001, 01:51 PM
Now I know why Gaz likes this guy...he has 5 vowels in his name which is four more than our last QB...:)
03-15-2001, 01:53 PM
Hey Illusion, Beuelein used to backup Aikman in Big D.
03-15-2001, 02:52 PM
This is from NFLTalk:
Beuerlein said he doesn't expect to be dealt. "(The Panthers) have no intention of trading me," Beuerlein said Wednesday night. "Let's face it, nobody's going to take me. How is any other team going to take a guy who is coming off two major surgeries, who won't be ready for football until June? I should be a full go for training camp, but any team is going to want a new quarterback for the off-season work. Nobody's going to pick me up. (Coach) George (Seifert) knows it. Everyone in the organization knows it."
Is this a red flag???
03-15-2001, 03:46 PM
The answer is Aikman. Why??
1. He doesnt cost anything. You have to give something up for Buerline.
2. Neither one is going to make the team a post season threat.
3. Aikman is a better passer
4. Aikman can mentor a younger QB that Peterson (hopefully) drafts
5. Aikman will be a better draw than Buerline (In Peterson's mind, this may be the number one thing)
03-15-2001, 04:31 PM
What do you think a good GM would do in Carls position? You seem to have lots of ideas of what Carl shouldn't do, so let's hear what he should do. That way if Carl does what you think he should do, we can all expect to see you here singing praises to Carl's great decision.
BTW, if you are a packer fan, why do you hope that the CHIEFS draft a q-back of the future??
keg in kc
03-15-2001, 04:36 PM
I should be a full go for training camp, but any team is going to want a new quarterback for the off-season work
Not related to Ache-man or Brrrrlein exactly, but I think that's why we're not jumping all over Trent Green yet. He reportedly can't work out until training camp, so it's not really imperative to rush the trade, except for as it pertains to signing other free agents, but since we know roughly how much he'll cost, there's no reason to not sign anyone else..That trade isn't nearly dead yet in my opinion...
Now, as for this thread, I think Aikman is the only option when compared with Beuerlein, for reasons other posters have pointed out but I still think that Green will be our QB in 2001, hopefully for a deal that won't kill us (my opinion on that's been clear I think...).
03-15-2001, 05:12 PM
Buerlein. 2 easy. next...
03-16-2001, 06:21 AM
I was not aware that Buerlein had surgery. Anyone know what on?
~~Now leaning towards Acheman
03-16-2001, 06:32 AM
As Bob Dole has been typing on here since Monday, we should/probably can sign both, cut Collins and draft a mid-round QB. Beuerlein will likely be an unrestricted free agent by April 1.
03-16-2001, 07:07 AM
Can you read?? I have said over and over what Carl should do. AGAIN, he should NOT trade for Green. He should either play Collins or sign Aikman and plan on a top five pick next year. In other words, rebuild already. Not some suedo "retooling" job that has left them without a QB, RB, and defensive force. Draft a QB, Draft a Running Back and let them DEVELOP!
Now theres an idea that hasnt been tried in KC since Peterson arrived! Why not try it? Carl has shown over and over what his plan has produced: Mediocrity.
03-16-2001, 07:22 AM
Steinberg won't let Aikman visit the Chiefs. He thinks all KC is interested in is Green and he won't let his client be used as a negotiating ploy between KC and St. Louis.
The Chiefs developed Grbac. No we didn't draft him, but we did develop the guy. What do we have to show for it - nothing. Tell the Ravens and Giants that you need to develop a QB.
Red Till Dead
03-19-2001, 02:09 PM
My vote is sign Troy Aikman and start preparing for the draft!
Our offensive line protected the previously fragile Grbac for the year, while he waited and waited to throw the deep, deep crossing patterns. Our new offense will rely on much quicker slants and hitting receivers in stride. Aikman has that ability more than any other QBs mentioned. Aikman can read defenses faster, has quicker release than any other QB options. Plus he will be a tough leader, much like what DV will present to the players.
If Aikman can remain healthy playing on Grass he could look a lot like Kurt Warner. Aikman can play another 2-3 years without serious injury.
Aikman will excite chief players and fans. Will give players and fans hope we can have a successful season.
Aikman wants to play, and prove that last year was a fluke due to having absolutely no receivers or offensive line!
QB with a mindset I want leading our chiefs!!! Plus we won't have to give up draft picks for him. It is a no brainer (no pun intended) sign Troy Aikman now, and fix our RB and defensive needs in the draft.
Still think we should trade Tony Richardson for a second round draft pick.
[Edited by Red Till Dead on 03-19-2001 at 03:11 PM]
03-19-2001, 02:41 PM
Beuerlein was released today...he is now an UFA...
03-19-2001, 02:47 PM
I don't think that it is so Troy won't be used as a bargaining chip. I think it's so he has more leverage in negotiations. I don't think Troy will come cheap.
03-19-2001, 04:04 PM
The Chiefs didnt develop Grbac, the 49ers did. They had him for three years before he came to KC. He didnt just hold the clip board their, he got mentored by one of the best (steve young) and it still didnt help much. He also got to play while he was there. In fact, he played all but three snaps in a playoff game against the Packers. He helped the Packers get to the super bowl (three ints.) When he got to KC, was GIVEN (didnt earn it) the starting QB spot and produced one playoff appearance in four years.
03-19-2001, 04:10 PM
He left KC a better QB than he arrived. That is developement. 95% of his NFL snaps also came in KC. Not that I am somehow proud of that because I am not.
03-19-2001, 05:40 PM
SB won't cost a draft pick now...BTW, you said Aikman is a better passer....based on what? He hasn't had a good full season since '95....
03-19-2001, 11:42 PM
OK, Gaybutt Packers Fan, If we sign Aikman or play Collins, I will expect to see you start a thread here about how Carl made a great GM decision.
Gonzo88, hoping to sign Aikman so I can see ken squiggle!
P.S. I know you only picked the Collins option because you know that there is no way in hell that he will be the starter come game one, leaving you with a whole new year to bash Carl.
03-20-2001, 07:37 AM
I could argue that Grbac is the same pathetic QB today than he was when he arrived. In fact, his team got progressively worse and he never learned from his mistakes. He was given weapons to throw to and that, plus the fact that he picked up stats during garbage time, allowed him to put up decent numbers this year. I judge QBs on how their team does. We both know how the Chiefs have done with Grbac. I rest my case.
Aikman vs Buerline:
I still would rather have Aikman. He would be a better mentor, is deadly accurate when he gets protection, and he has won. The Chiefs have weapons, specifically a great tight end, plus they protect the QB pretty well. Grbac isnt quite the statue that Aikman is but he is close. Buerline is three years older than Aikman and is more suited to be a back up.
I judge QBs on how their team does.
That is a foolish way to judge QBs.
This criterion supposes that a team thrives or dies solely by the efforts of the QB. That is patently untrue.
Using your criterion for a QB, may I assume that you consider Trent Dilfer a great QB?
Clearly, your method of judging greatness is fatally flawed.
had no idea that Bono was such a good QB.
03-20-2001, 08:59 AM
No doubt Gaz, Dilfer would be FudgePack Fans ideal q-back while Favre is just another mediocre q-back!
Wondering why FudgeFan isn't all over Wolfs @ss to fire Favre and hire Dilfer??
03-20-2001, 10:26 AM
You are correct. I should have written "ONE of the ways I judge QBs...." It is the main way for me though, and not just one year. Bono was beneficiary of great coaching, great defense and a solid running game. He would have gotten a playoff win if Carl Peterson hadnt put the trust of his kicking game in Lin Elliots hands.
SOME of you guys tend to look at one year a make a judgement (ie Bono). You could call Mark Rypein one of the greatest QBs ever if you did that. Same with Bono.
Gaz, you are better than this. Look at a guys career, not one or two years. Hell, Elway has had a couple of bad years.
03-20-2001, 10:44 AM
I would have to take Buerlein over Aikman. Aikman should quit before his brains are mush, not to mention the fact that I absolutely hate the Cowboys and I could not allow myself to root for the Chiefs if he was our QB.
vBulletin® v3.8.8, Copyright ©2000-2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.