View Full Version : Which Rumor Involving The Chiefs Would Anger You The Most?
04-19-2001, 10:26 AM
So many rumors involving the Chiefs, with many unfortunately being less than promising.
Of the following which is being reported, which one would be the one which would make you go ballisitic?
Archie F. Swin
04-19-2001, 10:35 AM
I picked the Brister rumor . . . but the Brees rumor would run a very close 2nd.
04-19-2001, 10:51 AM
I would have voted for the Bubbly Blister choice... if it had been worded:
"Chiefs interested in signing Bubby Brister - to START"
04-19-2001, 11:40 AM
I did think about mentioning that, but I thought just having him on the Chiefs roster would be nauseating on its own.
Have a feeling I'm gonna need some ginger ale to make my stomach feel better come this weekend.
Ah, the heck with it, perhaps a few brews are in order... ;)
04-19-2001, 11:53 AM
I too, voted for Brister, but damned near any of them leave me a little cold. I want to see Hutchinson, Stroud, or Morgan on the roster come Sunday morning, but know it will not happen.
04-19-2001, 12:36 PM
I had to vote for Dilfer, because if we sign him Carl and the orginization will try to sell him as our starter by stateing what a great day it is to sign a Super Bowl winning QB to the team.
At least Brister would be signed as a backup, and not as a starter. Not that it makes me like it, but I could think of worse backups.
No good can come of this
The reason no one is saying the Trent Green rumor is because we all have already beat that rumor to a bloody pulp!
04-19-2001, 01:44 PM
Aeneas Williams to the Chiefs had to be posted on here because it is a rumor.
This was very disturbing to post. Each one of the other non-Draft scenarios has serious problems.
In the end, I had to choose Holmes. Total waste of money and a roster spot. He's Frank Moreau without a draft pick...
04-19-2001, 02:18 PM
Can you make polls where you can choose more than one choice. That was the case in this one...I wanted to choose several.
NO TO DILFER!!!
NO TO HOLMES....reason being the money this kid and his agent are asking. They want the same amount Tony A. is getting. Get real....the kid is a rookie and hasn't proved he deserves the money. Besides...is he playing football or playing for money? If he reduces the size of his head/then yes to Holmes.
YES TO GREEN/BRUELINE...either will work good with our team. I prefer Green in Red/Gold though.
keg in kc
04-19-2001, 02:32 PM
kat, Holmes is not a rookie, and he's been a 1000+ yard rusher in the NFL (as a rookie for the Ravens in '98), a level which T-Rich has not even approached at this point. His career ypc is better (4.6 yards) than Tony's number (4.4), with nearly 200 more carries (PH 459/TR 265). He's a proven pass-catcher.
All of that means there's no reason, at least IMO, that he should make any less than Richardson, especially if he comes in as a starter (we've said he'd get 80% of the carries if brought in), and apparently he and his agent agree with that concept.
You Holmes bashers need to talk to some Baltimore fans and see what they think about the guy they've watched play for the last 3 years. You might be surprised what they say...
04-19-2001, 02:39 PM
MAJOR OOPS on my part. I did read what the players said about him. I understand the money too. I read that. I'm not for sure where my head is today! In the sand I think.
Thank you for correcting me.
04-19-2001, 04:40 PM
No need to seek them out. I had Priest Holmes on my fantasy team in 1999 (the year after he went for 1000 yards). I saw him suck week in, week out, until Errict Rhett, of all people beat him out for the starting job.
Again, if Holmes was any good, why would an offensive mind like Billick staple him to the bench in 1999 after his 1998 season, in favor of Rhett and then get sweaty palms salivating over Jamal Lewis at # 5.
Only reason I could come up with was he thought Priest Holmes was NOT a big-time RB.
Now if he joins the Chiefs, I welcome Holmes with open arms.
But as the slogan in Missouri says (as you well all too well)
04-19-2001, 04:50 PM
The top vote getters do not even make my Radar.
Michael Bennett is by far and away the worst with Dilfer running a close second (if that was intended as a starter). Brees with the #12 would easily be third worst.
All the rest I am mostly indifferent about.
04-19-2001, 05:07 PM
I voted for (against) trading our 1st round pick for Green. I've seen several polls showing Duece dropping down to our slot.
I would be very irate if we passed up the chance for McCallister in order to sign a gimp-legged QB from St. Louis. :mad:
04-19-2001, 05:14 PM
Have no fear (I think).
On WG+FAN in New York the other day, I heard this Draft expert on (who, I forgot)
Anyhow, Michael Bennett was talked about and in particular, whether the Chiefs were after him at # 12.
Response was Bennett had horrible individual workouts, particulary catching the ball.
In fact, even on 3 yard dumpoffs, he had a case of the drops.
We'll know for sure on Saturday, but it certainly didn't seem like Bennett fits the Chiefs offensive scheme based on that.
The only reason why the Chiefs would possibly pick him is because they're in love with his speed...
04-19-2001, 05:15 PM
That should read WFAN
keg in kc
04-19-2001, 05:19 PM
AJ, the argument was not whether Holmes is a big-time back, it's whether he deserves the same contract considerations from us as Tony Richardson received last season, and I don't see why not, for the reasons I explained...
Regarding the Ravens taking Lewis, that's pretty simple: Baltimore chooses their draft picks from a draft board, picking BBA at their spot. I read an interesting article on that last night that I'll try to pass along if I can find it again. The article discussed them taking Ray and Jamal Lewis and why they took Chris McAllister instead of Jevon Kearse (CM was 5 on their list, and JK 6...). I found it to be a very interesting read and wonder if it might be beneficial for more teams (like us, for instance) to draft with that approach instead of focusing almost exclusively on the a certain position.
With Holmes, I think it's dependent entirely upon the Green trade: if we get Green, there's no shot at McAllister and/or Bennett, and Priest would be a good guy to add to the "stable" and give a chance to land the starting job in TC. He's the best available FA RB available in the price range we're looking for...
Your view on Holmes' career is intersting, although I don't agree with much of it. Out of time, now, though, so I'll have to just leave it at that...
04-20-2001, 04:07 PM
At this point I would say "Chiefs Interested In Signing Bubby Brister", but then again, I've always been a little slow.
04-20-2001, 11:39 PM
3 rumors coming true... and in one day!!
04-21-2001, 02:07 AM
Wow...the two things that ticked us fans off the most are what really happened...
Imagine that...At least we now all know that there REALLY WAS a plan the whole time, weather we agree with it or not...
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.