View Full Version : Jaime Martin, Trent Dilfer, Buerlein...what's WRONG with you people?!

Clint in Wichita
03-21-2001, 08:36 AM
Why in the h_ll would you want any of these scrubs and/or fossils on the Chiefs roster? You know they suck, yet many of you act as if one of these guys is going to "explode" and have a monster season.

Oh well...this is the same crowd (the ONLY crowd) that LOVED Grbac until the end.

03-21-2001, 08:39 AM

We are all well aware of your finely honed ability to criticize, but don't you think you should offer a solution when when telling everybody else they're nuts?

b comes after a, which both come before c...

03-21-2001, 08:45 AM
I don't remember anyone stating that these QB's were our saviors. I DO, however, remember people stating that they are decent temporary soutions. What are your ideas Clint?

03-21-2001, 09:28 AM
Sorry Guys... Clint is right. We have the receivers Now. Not in a few years. It has been asked before and I`ll ask it again, since when do we pick anybody good in the draft? How many busts have we had in recent years? Is it worth throwing away a power offense for the worst QB draft in years? Pick up Holmes. Get the running game going. Get Green. Let`s play ball before it`s too late!!! I`m sick of "next year". Anybody else out there?

03-21-2001, 09:52 AM

I do agree that we have the receivers now and as much as I HATE to admit it I agee with CLint as well on this subject. These guys are scrubs. As much as I would love to have Brunell here I don't think we can reali$ticly look at getting this guy as there are just WAY too many holes in this team to fill in order to make a run. I still think that Green is the best option if we can get it done as he is at least cap freindly. If we can't get Green we should really move into complete rebuilding mode, sacrificing this season.

03-21-2001, 10:35 AM
Kudos BD. But I don`t think we`re as bad off as everyone is saying. Once we scrapped the RBBC (Running back by committee) I think we have a better shot. I want a full time back, a constant. I see there`s alot of T-Rich fans here but not sure that is the ticket either. Guess we just have to give it a chance. I think we will be fine this year...

03-21-2001, 10:41 AM

I just don't want to see us leverage the entire franchise for the next 5 years when we have so many other needs. RB,DB,LB ect. ect. I am also not nearly as negative as many on this BB about our ability to draft well.I know that this is off the subject but does anybody know what happened to Kirkland?


Really wants to see some D

03-21-2001, 10:52 AM
I'm down with taking a closer look at Martin. I think he has potential to be an everyday QB and the price is certainly right.

I'm not opposed to talking with Buerlein. The rap on him is that he's brittle - well he's made 40 straight starts for Carolina and I'm not sure more than 1 other QB can say that.

I don't want Dilfer as 1st, 2nd, or 3rd string.

I'm not excited about Aikman.

I believe Green is out of our price range. If we were B-more, the Giants, Tenn, or New Orleans and had the luxury of all your picks and only needed to fill a hole or two, I'd be all for pulling the trigger.

Does anybody have any better options at QB? I hear Warren Moon is available....

03-21-2001, 11:08 AM

You forgot the possibility of Tony Banks coming here.

You see Clint, I have found that it doesnt matter who is wearing the Chiefs uniform. Once they are wearing it, the fans expect nothing but greatness. It doesnt matter if the player was horrible before they got here. Then after the player sucks some more with the chiefs and gets cut, MOST Chiefs blame the coaching staff. I think Chief fans would welcome Warren Moon or Steve Bono back. Hell, there not any worse than Tony Banks or Trent Dilfer.

Thats why Carl Peterson has been able to get away with bring in guys like Bono, Linn Elliott, Greg Hill, Derrick Walker, Jon Baker (remember how everyone blamed coaching for Baker not being able to kick the ball inbounds?) Lew Bush, Carlton Gray, Chester McGlockton, ect. He has been bringing in garbage for years and when the garbage still stinks after it gets here, the NFL's smartest fans blame coaching, not Carl.

Go figure!

03-21-2001, 11:20 AM
The funny thing about FANS is that we tend to support our team...I'm not a bandwagon fan and will wear my Chief coat skiing in Denver If they were 16-0 and we were 1-15. I(we) may cuss and raise hell when a player isn't performing, but still stick with our team through the lean years...and appreciate the good years more for having suffered.

I wish the Chiefs had enough draft picks, money, and cap room to get a payton manning, cory dillon, dexter coakley, warren sapp and 25 year old tim Grunhard...But I'm realistic. I want to see the best quarterback available at a manageable price, while filling as many holes as possible through the draft. If that means getting by with a guy like Martin, Aikman, Beurline, or some scrub like Dilfer while filling the leaks....I'll yell til' I'm horse every sunday, and hope for a young stud QB next year or a 3rd round draft golden nugget developement.

So stay on your couch, eat some a dem der cheesy poofs and ***** until your heart is content...

03-21-2001, 11:21 AM
Instead of signing Banks, we could just pretend we did. Then we could forfeit our right to the ball every third possession and it would be as though Banks were there with an Arrowhead emblazoned on the side of his helmet.

03-21-2001, 11:23 AM
LMAO - LOVE the short bus....

03-21-2001, 11:24 AM

No problem with that. What I have a problem with is the fact that after some stop gap like Steve Bono leaves, the coaching staff is the fans scapegoat for why his performance was pathetic. It shows ignorance. The player couldnt cut it before he got to the Chiefs (hence why he is a free agent), he couldnt cut it while he was with the Chiefs, and he is basically out of football after he leaves the Chiefs. Why blame Chief coaching for that?

03-21-2001, 11:25 AM

I've been looking for the "right one" for a while now..

Its just too bad that so many people need a "ride". ;)

I don't mind bringing in some free agents for a 2-3 year fix as long as we're not giving away the entire future(and potential permanent replacements) at the same time...which is really the only reason I wouldn't want Green. I want an affordable and affective Qb this year...don't expect a superstar....I want overall team improvment this year and THEN get me the Cannon Armed GURU QB...I really hope it isn't Banks or Dilfer...but I'll chear for them just the same...between cussing fits...

~at least we have a great punter now....a little help on D and we have a chance to keep low scoring games and possibly a respectable record this year....which is good enough for me THIS year if it brings long term improvement.

[Edited by Iowanian on 03-21-2001 at 11:30 AM]

03-21-2001, 11:25 AM
Clint, I don't think any of us like the "scrubs" you mention, though, I would like to see us sign Jamie Martin. But most of us think the price for Green is too high. The same price for Brunell would not meet near the resistance, that the Green idea is. That said, I think some of us, believe we are in a position to rebuild a solid team, but it will take two or three years. With one of these "scrubs" we would be able to move into next years draft, with a high pick, and a very good quality of QBs. True, we have the receiving corps now, but I don't think with Green at QB we will outscore that many opponents, so why give our #12 pick. Use it on a DT, or RB, if we do not sign one in FA.

03-21-2001, 11:27 AM
The thing some of you seem to be missing is this...we have only one QB. We are in a bad position right now. Us fans know it, and I don't see anyone on here posting that Dilfer, Buerlien, Banks, Collins, etc. are going to come in and save this team. The fact is that losing Grbac to free agency has put us over a barrel. Whether you love or hate Grbac isn't the point. He was familiar with the players and was, IMHO, better than the QB's I've listed above.

If we mortgage the future for Green or Brunell, we won't be able to rebuild the defense. If we don't get a top-notch QB and build defense, then were back to 10-7 games. So we have to weigh out the possibilities and decide what it will take to get us back to the playoffs.

IMO the longer we wait, the more options we have. The #12 pick becomes more valuable with time. If we are going to sign a 2nd rate QB anyway, why get into a hurry to do it?? I just think the longer we wait the better our chances get to pick up some top-notch players with cap friendly numbers. The arguement against this is...if we wait too long the players will all be signed with other teams. I don't see this happening as far as the QB position...there aren't that many teams out there shopping for a QB, and there are none out there needing one as badly as we do.

If we miss out on Garner or Holmes then we will have to let T-Rich show us what he can do with 20-30 carries per game. I personally would like to see that.

As far as "saviors" go, I don't think there is anyone out there that can save this team by playing one position. I would rather have 4 decent players filling spots than 1 superstar and 3 scrubs.

the waiting game continues...

03-21-2001, 11:29 AM

I would rather us throw 100 mil at a QB that has been deteriorating for the past four years...

03-21-2001, 11:33 AM

Careers are resurrected every day. Situations change from team to team. Opportunities vary.

Bono was a poor example for you to use because I don't know of any Chiefs fans that blame anyone but Bono.

However, I do see where your coming from and I understand your "take".

Instead of just throwing up Kurt Warner, Joe Horn, Charlie Garner, and a host of other players that were "pathetic" before changing to a new opportunity, I'll tell you a story from personal experience.

My youngest daughter had a bit of a rep in 1st & 2nd grade of being a cutup and poor learner. In 3rd grade, she found a teacher that KNEW what made her tick and provided a lot of encouragement and attention. Kirsten is now at the top of her class and tutors all the other students. While this example isn't football related, it does meet your premise for "once a scrub, always a scrub". I don't care for pessimistic viewpoints such as yours and I beleive if you followed that theory in your personal life, you'd not have many friends because none of us is perfect. Stop expecting Carl or anyone else on the Chiefs staff to be.

03-21-2001, 11:34 AM

Read Favre contract before making a statement like that. MOST Of the money is due to him when he is 40 years old and no longer playing. In other words, he wont see it.

If Favre is "deteriorating", how do you describe Elvis Grbac? Favre has NEVER had a losing record, has played in every game for 9 years, and has been to two super bowls and lets not forget, he is the same age as Grbac.

Now Elvis, on the other hand, can read defenses, fails in the clutch, hasnt won a playoff game and was 7-9 last year.

Help me understand where you are coming from!

03-21-2001, 11:39 AM

Congrats on your daughter! Good work.

As far as Peterson goes, he has had 12 years and counting. I wasnt ripping him after the first three or four. Only after I was convinced that he is not the man for the job.
12 years and 3 playoff wins (none in 8 years) is a bad record. You want to argue that one with me?? I doubt it. Your smarter than that.

BTW, I am a so called "troll" and in a previous post, you said that "trolls" arent allowed?? Why havent you kicked me off?

03-21-2001, 11:44 AM

Do you remember how it was Mike Stocks fault that Jon Baker couldnt keep a kick inbounds last year?? Didnt it dawn on anyone that Carl Peterson scouted and signed the guy during crunch time for the Chiefs?? If the plan was for Baker to kick to the corners, shouldnt he have proven the ability to do so PRIOR to being signed??? Think about it. Blaming Mike Stock is assinine.

If I hire someone and they quickly turn out to be a total failure, its concidered a "bad hire" by me and rightfully so. Carl Peterson is around because coaching has been used as his scapegoat for years. Until somebody realizes this, he will remain as long as he wants to.

03-21-2001, 11:46 AM
Wrong, Carl will remain as long as Lamar wants him to.

03-21-2001, 11:50 AM
Special teams play was by far the worst part of KC's team before, during and after Jon Baker. THAT's what was Mike Stock's fault.

Of course, Baker was a bad hire as was Bentley who couldnt kick it past the 10 yard line and if I recall it was Gunther that said he liked him because he didnt wear sleeves at the tryout.

The fact that Mike Stock was a dufus was still a given however.

03-21-2001, 11:50 AM
Has Carl overstayed his welcome? Yes. However, he's an experienced GM and we've just resigned him for 5 more years. There's really nothing I can do so I keep my mouth shut about it.

I've not personally heard anyone blaming Stock for Baker. Baker sucked - period. Stock sucked too. That combination isn't going to help anything. Perhaps a better ST coach would have found a flaw in Baker's motion. We'll never know.

I don't consider you a troll, Ken. You are annoying but if you stick around and converse, that's not a troll, IMO.

03-21-2001, 11:57 AM
Selective memory is so great, don't you think so Ken?

I don't think you can name 1 person who blamed the Baker fiasco on only one person. NO ONE blamed the entire incident on Stock. IF you had taken time to read and understand a post you would have found out that we DID blame him or gunther for keeping baker in the game after he shanked to first 2.

First 2 blame on Baker, for whatever reason, BUT the last and most crucial shank WAS Stocks fault. Now if you consider that blaming it all on coaching, then really do live in a wierd world

03-21-2001, 01:20 PM
Hey Titus,

Quick questions for you:

What should the Chiefs do with their 12th pick and if they should keep it, who should they draft?

Chief fans,

C'mon guys! Stock was crucified after that Raider game by you guys! You have to understand that when a player hangs out on the waiver wire, chances are he aint that good. Carl has given his coaching staff these kinds of stiffs for years, but has NEVER been held accountable for loses, losing records, non-playoff appearances. Never. To the contrary, he has been rewarded with contract extensions. And its fans like you that conviently blame the coaches for not being able to turn crap into diamonds. Thats ignorant.
Lamar Hunt is ignorant too. I think we all agree that Mike Stocks kicks led directly to that Raider loss. Mike Stock deserves as much blame for that Raider loss as Luzap does. Neither one of them signed Jon Baker.

03-21-2001, 01:31 PM
Stock sucked for years as ST coach. He "happened" to fall into ST Coach of the Year in 95 because the whole team played with emotion & passion. After that, ST has been a true weakness. You can point the finger at talent but we've had the same hurdles to cross as other teams but have been unable to get it done. Baker actually kicked as well as any of our other KO specialists that year except one game. Did Carl continue to put him on the field after he kept putting the ball OOB? Nope - the coaches did that. Carl is to blame for MANY of this team's problems. Jon Baker doesn't fall to Carl. Do you think Carl evaluated those kickers or do you thing Stock and Gunther did? Carl just brought 'em in and signed the best performer. Your anger, in this case, is misdirected because you can't see the big picture.

Pitt Gorilla
03-21-2001, 01:33 PM
I blamed Baker and Baker only. What's your point?

03-21-2001, 01:38 PM

So if Baker doesnt kick off, who does?? Stoyanovich? As I recall, the Chiefs had problems with kick off distance the entire year. Thats why Baker was called in. Carl tried to find someone that could get some distance and the best he could do was Baker!

You see what I am talking about! You guys are still saying it was not Carl Petersons fault for bringing Baker to the Chiefs. It was Stock fault for allowing him to stay in the game. What came first, the cart or the horse? Peterson didnt give stock many viable options. Either play Baker who has a better leg, but kicks out of bounds or play Stoyo who cant kick it past the 20. Either way, Stock is cornholed!

I can bring up more examples if you like. How about the recieving tandem of Sean LaChapell and Lake Dawson. I suppose its Marty's fault that these guys didnt put up Jerry Rice like numbers EVEN THOUGH they were out of the league the following year.

Remember folks, it takes talent to win FIRST, coaching second.

03-21-2001, 01:39 PM
He has no point, as usual.

Ken: Ive got a quick question for you, can you provide the posts of those that 'crucified stock after that raiders loss'? Since you cant, there's no reason to answer or try to dodge the question with your BS.

Carl can be held accountable for making bad personnel decisions, but as far as gametime decisions those fall on the coaches.

The fact that KC's ST's play sucked on more than just that one game, proves that it wasnt Jon Baker's play alone that was the cause. KC's ST gave up MANY key plays in many games over the last couple of years.

03-21-2001, 01:42 PM

My point is obvious. Baker should never have been given the chance in the first place. Coaches play the players the GM gives to them. Once again, Carl gave his coaches a bag of garbage and told them to go win a game with it. When they didnt, ignorant fans put total blame on either stock or baker. Peterson left unscathed as usual.

03-21-2001, 01:43 PM
1st, Carl brought in many kickers to try out. Stock & Gunther selected Baker because he outperformed the rest on THAT DAY. Hell yes, after Baker put 2 kick OB, put Stoyo out there. It will be short but at least he won't kick OB. That's an easy question, Ken.

FYI, Dawson played for the Colts the following year so you don't really know what you are talking about. Additionally, LaChapelle put up pretty good numbers for us. Perhaps there were other circumstances that forced him out of football that can't be traced to Carl Peterson.

03-21-2001, 01:44 PM
Ok, Ken, what about Gunther's decision to give the ball back to Oakland in the waning minutes of the game even thought KC had been moving the ball and only needed 1 first down to close the game out. You gonna sit there and tell me that was Carl's fault?

03-21-2001, 01:44 PM

I think Pitt was asking me the question, not you.

I asked you a few questions and either you dont know the answer or.......you dont know the answer. Nice work.

BTW, if you want to see post where Baker was crucified, just go into your archives. I am sure that I participated in those conversations.

(the guy saves my posts from three years ago! How pathetic is that? What a f cking loser!)

03-21-2001, 01:46 PM
Ken: Pitt wanted an answer that was w/o bull****. If you want to see a loser, look in the mirror.

Im now firmly convinced you spend too much time with your rectal thermometer.

03-21-2001, 01:47 PM

I will be happy to answer your questions, but first you have to answer mine.

("I dont know" will do just fine!)

03-21-2001, 01:49 PM

Just answer my questions. Christ!

03-21-2001, 01:50 PM
yeah, that's what I thought. You've painted yourself into a corner and are now pathetically trying to defend Mike Stock and Gunther Cunningham to justify your hatred of Carl Peterson.

I've seen it all.

03-21-2001, 01:52 PM

C'mon, quit being such a girl and answer my questions. I want to know your opinion on something for once instead of you always ripping on everybody elses.

03-21-2001, 01:52 PM
So tell me Ken, should Holmgren or Sherman have gone after this great ST coach in Mike Stock?

03-21-2001, 01:54 PM
Ken: I'm unfortunately not under this delusion that you, one, give a damn, or two really care one iota what I think and to that end, love to watch you act like a little punk trying to goad me into playing your game.

You should know by now that each time you open your piehole you make yourself look like a fool, I mean come on! Defending Mike Stock?! Sheesh!

03-21-2001, 01:55 PM
I believe I've answered all the questions directed at me, Ken. Why haven't you answered mine?

Carl brings in EVERY available kicker mid-season in 99. Every single one. It's sad that Baker was the best, but that is who was available.

Was Washington's kicking debacle in '00 somehow the fault of Carl Peterson as well? The two situations aren't that much different.

What it boils down to is that if your kicker can't put the ball in play or between the uprights, you find someone that can. If there is nobody else available, you are screwed.

03-21-2001, 01:58 PM
Seriously, Ken, we shall see what happens in Washington DC as to whether or not Marty and Snyder can put together a team and whether or not Kurt, Jimmy and Mike are actually good coaches.

Of course, the theory 'talent first, coaching second' doesnt allways pan out...I mean it doesnt really explain Trent Dilfer does it?

03-21-2001, 01:59 PM
Ken?....Hello...I think I made him cry, sorry guys.

03-21-2001, 02:04 PM
Beep Beep, short bus is here. http://nfl.com/players/stats/career/1551.html..Dawson did play the year after he left the Chiefs.. I actually liked both Lake Dawson and LaChappelle...at least didn't know any better...Lake just got hurt too much.

Stock made the ENTIRE special Teams suck....not just the kicker...I don't think its a coincindence that he coaches BEEP BEEP "Special" teams.

03-21-2001, 02:09 PM
Im wondering if Ken realizes that the great and talented, Bill Polian picked up Dawson off the waiver wire...

Something tells me Ken will defend Polian's actions as opposed to villify him. But then again, he does thing Stock is a good ST coach.

03-21-2001, 02:45 PM
I thought LaChapelle played for the Seahawks the year after being released from the Chiefs.

easily proven wrong...

03-21-2001, 04:06 PM

What kind of production did Lake Dawson have after he left the Chiefs? Greg Hill got picked up too.

You cant win if you dont have good players. Doesnt matter if Vince Lombardi or Mike Stock is your coach. Right Titus?

I do care what you have to say, otherwise I wouldnt give you the time of day. I seriously would like your opinion on what the Chiefs should do with the 12th pick and if they keep it, who should they draft?

It would be nice to see you use your head and think instead of constantly ripping my (and others) opinions, predictions and insights. If you dont know, then say it. I wont rip you either way. I will continue to rip you if you refuse to answer me. It makes me think that you have no clue.

03-21-2001, 04:15 PM
I can't believe some of the names mentioned lately.

What I also can't believe is that so far DV has created more problems than he's solved.

I'm starting to wonder if an Idiot coach with a team full of talent it better than an average team with a "Great" head coach....

03-21-2001, 04:26 PM
Perhaps I shouldn't be so negative about Tearmeil, but I've been anti-Tearmel since the day he was hired. I just don't believe he is the right person for the job at this time.
Of course, if we somehow have Brunnell fall into our laps, then I might begin to believe that lightning can strike twice for one person. Tearmeil had Faulk and Warner fall into his lap in STL.
Maybe he is just a lucky SOB.

03-21-2001, 05:44 PM
Ken, you amaze me...the poster boy for Reading is Fundamental.

You state in the same sentence that you dont care what I say but also 'seriously want my opinion' on what the Chiefs should do.

Sorry, Ken, you'll have to just figure out your own opinion instead of stealing mine. Here's a hint, Ken. I have said what I think they should do, only to find out you would have had to READ MY POSTS when I said it. Every single one of my posts still exists on this board. If you try, you might just find it.

Second, let's not be absurd. Of course you need players to win the game, duh! Remember 2+2=4. That still doesnt explain how Trent Dilfer takes Baltimore to the SB now does it. Obviously, you cant concentrate on more than one fact or factor of the game at a time so I'll leave you with that one to think about tonight.

So tell me more about Mike Stock, Ken. If he's so great, why didnt Sherman or Holmgren go after him?

03-22-2001, 09:47 AM

I said you need "good" players. In case you didnt know Ti ts, there is a difference between good players and average players. The Chiefs have average players. Just thought I would fill you.

I never said Stock was "great" either. Sometimes I wonder what education level you have. Judging by your picture and your responses on this board, my guess would be GED or below. None the less, Holmgren and Sherman already have special teams coaches so dont expect them to be looking for stock or anybody else.

You have NEVER posted your thoughts on what the Chiefs should do with the 12th pick because you have no clue AND you are afraid of being wrong. INSTEAD, you wait for others to offer suggestions and jump all over them. That takes a lot of courage Titus.

Give me your address and I'll get you a subscription to the Sporting News. At least you can use there thoughts on here.

BTW, can you go into your archives and find my piece on the "ten greatest moments in Chiefs history" Thanks

(the guys prints and saves my posts. What a loser!)

What a dick!

Mark M
03-22-2001, 10:00 AM
Just thought I would fill you.

Ohhhh ... that explains it. I guess it also explains this:


Don't bend over ... it seems as though a fan is coming to pack.

~~Knew as much.

[Edited by Mark M on 03-22-2001 at 10:09 AM]

03-22-2001, 10:14 AM
Good ol' Ken...projects his problems on others. I dont know why you insist on getting away from the subject at hand. I think I know why, because you really dont have any consistent thoughts on the subject.

Ok, lets try again.

Your original theory is that it takes GREAT players to win, first and foremost and then GREAT coaching. Ok, I'm willing to concede to your hypothesis (you'll have to look up that word in the dictionary, Im sorry for using such big words). Now, how does that explain Trent Dilfer leading the Ravens to a SB championship. I know that makes you all a flutter cause it shakes your entire belief system, but bear with me. Second, why didnt Miami win a ton of championships. They had a GREAT QB and a GREAT coach--for 10 points, can you name them Ken?

In any event, my whole point is that it's not only talent and it's not only coaching and sometimes it's not even the combination of both. I think you would agree, but you're not big enough to act like a man, your last response is all the evidence I need.

If you'd like to discuss football, Im sure everyone else around here would love it if you did--it would be a breath of fresh air for all of us.

03-22-2001, 10:20 AM
Hypothosis - educated guess

Ti ts,

There are exceptions to every rule. By in large, it takes great players first, and good coaching next to win super bowls.

You want to talk football???

How come you wont answer two very simple FOOTBALL questions?

Again: What should the Chiefs do with the 12th pick and if they keep it, who should they draft?

Your actions speak louder than words. I am quite convinced that you would rather exchange blows with me than talk intellegient football.

03-22-2001, 10:28 AM
Yes, actions do speak louder than words, and your constant misspelling of my last name, something that was funny to my friends in the first grade is quite telling you your maturity level, but I digress.

In order for you to 'strike a blow', you would first have to make a point. A point is something that you derive from making a consistent argument. You have not had a consistent argument since day one. You have allways played both sides of every argument.

Here's my point: You, regardless of what happens in the KC organization, will criticize it.

There is no other point of discussion. You are not interested in others opinions and have stated so on many occasions only to turn right around and goad them into another one of your games.

Serious football discussion is something you have yet to even thought of. Maybe someday, you will understand, until then I fully expect you to go on with your cute little misspellings of my name and other miscellaneous phallic and/or homosexual references--it's your best defense to real discussion.

03-22-2001, 10:31 AM
Just answer the questions already, Christ!

Why do you have to be so difficult and combatative? Lets talk football already! Save your routine for someone else. Just answer a couple of very simple football questions and we can move on.

03-22-2001, 10:34 AM
Im sorry, Ken, I already have. I really do feel bad for you now. You are right, Im moving on. I'll let you have the last word since you must have it.

Im going to 'try' to engage you in a discussion on the Garner thread. Do you think you can go about 3 posts before you make a homosexual or phallic remark or am I just kidding myself?

03-22-2001, 10:38 AM
Dodging the question again, imagine that. I will give you the answer Titus:


Its OK to not know, its pathetic to dance around it. Thats why I and others on this board dont have a lot of respect for you as far as NFL knowledge goes.

BTW, I never refered to you as a homosexual. Go to your archives and show me that one.

03-22-2001, 01:54 PM
Never mind.

I realized that my post was a waste of time.

conserving energy.

[Edited by Gaz on 03-22-2001 at 01:58 PM]

03-23-2001, 01:06 AM
Revised SNL "Ken you ignorant Slut"

First you obviously do not have a clue as to what a hypothesis is so let me help you.

A hypothesis is a specific statement of prediction, usually used in scientific or philosophical enedeavors. It describes in concrete (rather than theoretical) terms what is expected to happen in a planned study.

Now that you know what it is, let me be clear it is not an educated guess, but an educated prediction.

A guess is that Ken cannot tell his A$$ from a hole in the ground. I personally guess that is a very true statement but there is no way to definitively prove or disprove this statement.

A hypothesis is that Ken is so ignorant because he keeps his head up his A$$. This statement can definitively be proven right or wrong through study so therefore it is a hypothesis. It may be that Ken is so ignorant due to an underdeveloped brain. Either one is a hypothesis that can be tested, the educated part is that it cannot be denied that Ken is clearly ignorant. Therefore we can form many hypothesis as to why this is true.

Oh and Ken Titus indeed has clearly stated on a number of subjects from who should be the next QB to who we should draft with the #12 pick (if retained). It is your laziness and sloth that keeps you from knowing.

03-23-2001, 07:59 AM

A lot of wasted space with your last post. Dont you have something better to say, maybe football related? Instead of spending a couple of paragraphs explaining the difference between a guess and a prediction (same thing).

03-23-2001, 08:43 AM

Respectfully, you're wasting your time. He still thinks an educated guess and a hypothesis are the same thing. Don't forget who you're dealing with :). He's the same guy who just slandered Gregg's photograph, but didn't have the sack to post his own. Not to mention he degraded his education and in the succeeding posts demonstrated his own sub-standard intellectual prowess by mis-spelling several words such as: hypothosis, combatative, wont, intelligient, by in large etc....not to mention demonstrated his immaturity by manipulating Gregg's last name (how original), and by slinging insults.

After all, that's about all any of us should expect.....

03-23-2001, 09:33 AM

I am surprised and dissapointed in you. Usually you talk football. Now you have stooped to the level of Luzap, Mark M, Titus, and Reynolds (among others) that come on here looking to pick a fight instead of talking football. These other guys I can see because they have been doing it for some time. But not you. You need to refrain from doing that and keep yourself in the same company as Gaz, Cannibal, Phobia and some of the other knowledgable football fans on this board that would rather talk about the NFL than check spelling errors and grammar. Save that crap for the Luzap's and Titus' of the board.

Mark M
03-23-2001, 09:41 AM
ButterNuts (Packfan)--
Um ... actually, you saying that you discuss football is like Jerry Springer saying that he discusses pressing social issues.

Repeating "the Chiefs haven't won a playoff game in eight years" and "Carl Peterson should be fired" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't count as "talking football." It's called b!tching like a 4 year old girl.

I have tried to talk football with you ... and it just doesn't work, so I no longer even try.

~~Talks football with those who know what they're talking about.

03-23-2001, 09:55 AM

This particular topic is about Quarterback options available to the Chiefs. I've seen you post repeatedly about Carl and Elvis sucking etc..., how much knowledge you have about football, and that we should all listen to you.

Getting back to the topic..I see both potential success and problems with each of the listed Quarterbacks. Beuerlein is old, and losing mobility, but he is experienced, had 5 surgeries last year and says he feels good. I feel that he would be somewhat affordable, has alot of experience, and could get the chiefs by for a year or two while developing a young draft project like McMahon, Carter, tuiosopo, or Rosenfels. Dilfer isn't know for his great accuracy, but doesn't claim to be a team savior. I don't really want him as the starter for the Chiefs, but he is a team player, distributes credit and accepts responsibility for his errors. He would be a viable backup option. Martin is young, a perenial backup, but has been fairly affective when called upon in JAX. I like Aikman, but have some concerns for his health and durability. I feel that KC has good tackles to protect him, and playing on grass vs turf will help. Trent Green isn't a bad option, but the price is just too high.

Your FOOTBALL solution to this is?

~Cannibal doesn't take shots at people???hahahahahahah
(not a shot at you can....just proof that pack doesn't always pay attention....you've got some good off topic comment)

03-23-2001, 09:56 AM
I say get GREEN! His knee will not be a problem!! Move and get him and let's get a QB in draft to train young and let the Chiefs begin to roll!! It's time and no one worth a flip is left anyway. I did read Sharper is not going to sign he is one ticked off player for the way they treated him and his contract deal. Hum, sorry Elvis~~~NOT

Mark M
03-23-2001, 10:06 AM
I have to disagree with you on the Green thing. The guy has won what, a grand total of nine games in his illustrious career? Granted, he knows the system, but what we have to give up to get him is not worth it, IMO.

As far as the rest of the FA QBs we're looking at, I see Beurlein as the most viable option. Granted, he does have a few years on him, but he would be a very valuable teacher to the type of QBs coming out in this draft. None of them are barn-burners, but many (McMahon, Tuiasasopo, Rosenfels, Weinke, Heuppel) have some talent and leadership ability. Beurlein has made a career with "less-than-ideal" talent for a QB (unlike a Favre, Bledsoe, Young) and would be a great mentor for any of these guys. Sure, Aikman would also be a good teacher, but I'm still leary of the oft-concussed three-time Super Bowl winner. The experience he gained earning those rings would also be a great teaching tool, but what good are they if, with one more shot, all the guy knows about them is that they're shiny?

Banks? Dilfer? Martin? I don't think so. I'd rather have Beurlein, Collins and Rookie and let them fight it out.

Only time will tell.

~~Proving he can discuss football.

[Edited by Mark M on 03-23-2001 at 10:21 AM]

03-23-2001, 10:30 AM
so nice I said it twice :rolleyes:

03-23-2001, 10:30 AM

I'm somewhat surprised that you have noticed I only engage in football conversations. I always feel anonymous on here. However, as much as I and several others tire of your ranting, you usually have good points to make, and ones that are tough to argue (even if they tend to be repetitious :p). You normally don't descend into the realm of mindless, childish insults that you graced the board with today and yesterday. That's all I was pointing out. No offense, I just thought that maybe pointing it out would get you back onto talking football which is what you ask of others. As for this thread....I'm done :D. I'll happily debate FB with you on other threads when I log on.

03-23-2001, 04:23 PM

First, before I forget, Cannibal does take a shot every now and then, but he only does it when someone comes at him. Same with me. The reason why I get more than Cannibal is because I am tougher on the Chiefs organization, their players, and SOME of their fans.

Now, as far as the QB situation. Buerline would be OK, so would Aikman. I orginally stated that I didnt want the Chiefs to TRADE for Steve Buerline. Now that he comes for nothing, his addition would better the position. At least he can read defenses and doesnt crumble under pressure. Whatever they do, I will be livid if they dont DRAFT a young QB. Even the teams that have GREAT quarterbacks find younger ones to develop in case the great one goes down. Look no further than my Packers. Since trading for Favre, they have drafted: Ty Detmer, Mark Brunell, Aaron Brooks, and Matt Hasselbeck - all after the 5th round. They traded Brunell and Brooks for one 2nd round pick, one 3rd round pick, and one 5th round pick. And trading Hasselbeck allowed them to move up 7 spots in the draft and get an extra 3rd round. Not bad for just doing some scouting and developing.

The BIGGEST problem I have with the Chiefs is that they fail to utilize the draft to build their team. Just look at the amount of running backs they have drafted the last five years. None of them, IMO, were given a fair chance. Why draft them in the first place?? You cant win by loading your team with castoffs and KEY POSITIONS. The Chiefs have proven this.

03-23-2001, 04:48 PM
Wow, I now feel like hugging everyone around me. I've been fired 3 days ago and now I make Packfan's list of knowledgeable football fans. My life is now complete.

I guess I'm off the all-idiot football team now, huh?!?

03-23-2001, 05:49 PM
Sorry to hear about you getting fired.

03-24-2001, 10:19 PM
Hey, thanks, Brad. I'm past that now. In fact, I spent the whole day working on a small network @ nearly $100 an hour. I'm excited about the opportunity my x-prick-boss has afforded me.... :)

03-24-2001, 10:28 PM
After reading what Vermeil said about Banks I don't see him being a Chief! He thinks the guy can and will have it someday, but quote Vermeil said if he had it now he would have him signed. That one is out the door.
I have to say to Iowaian?? Your bus is toooooo funny. Good job! You need to teach us to do things like that. Or maybe not, we'd be a lot of kids with cartoons going.
Kathy :D