PDA

View Full Version : Broncos trade for DT Kennedy from Rams


Splat420
06-08-2007, 11:25 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2897672

After a couple of frustrating seasons in St. Louis, former first-round choice Jimmy Kennedy was traded by the Rams to the Denver Broncos for what is believed to be a sixth-round pick.

Kennedy, a first-round pick in 2003, is a 6-foot-4, 325-pound former Penn State star whom the Rams hoped would solidify the interior of their defensive line. Over the past two seasons, though, they've had trouble getting Kennedy to conform to the team's style of defense. They wanted him to be more of a run-stopper; he wanted to shoot the gap and try to disrupt offenses.

The Broncos were a good fit for Kennedy because they want to get bigger along the defensive line. The other day, the Broncos signed defensive tackle Sam Adams. Now, Kennedy will be thrown into the mix.

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 11:26 AM
They're taking the shotgun approach again.

I can't imagine it will work any better this time around, but we'll see.

Reerun_KC
06-08-2007, 11:26 AM
Damn they can make some serious moves each year...

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 11:26 AM
Another trade. Damn.

This is ridiculous.

chagrin
06-08-2007, 11:27 AM
meanwhile, we are "looking" at a guy we won't sign and simply trusting our D-line with a few rookies, yay

siberian khatru
06-08-2007, 11:28 AM
The Broncos are trying to get Bowlen one more Super Bowl before his tan fades.

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 11:28 AM
meanwhile, we are "looking" at a guy we won't sign and simply trusting our D-line with a few rookies, yay

STFU

The Broncos go trade crazy every offseason and it's only really worked out twice (Bailey/Walker).

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 11:28 AM
meanwhile, we are "looking" at a guy we won't sign and simply trusting our D-line with a few rookies, yay

Are you suggesting that you think this was a GOOD move?

pikesome
06-08-2007, 11:28 AM
meanwhile, we are "looking" at a guy we won't sign and simply trusting our D-line with a few rookies, yay

Our's is a better plan. If it works.

OnTheWarpath58
06-08-2007, 11:29 AM
meanwhile, we are "looking" at a guy we won't sign and simply trusting our D-line with a few rookies, yay

The players we have are better than Jimmy Kennedy.

Not sure why anyone is concerned about this move.

Easy 6
06-08-2007, 11:29 AM
Per Chris Mortensen: The Broncos have just signed Mark Gastineau to a 3 year contract, terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Reerun_KC
06-08-2007, 11:31 AM
The players we have are better than Jimmy Kennedy.

Not sure why anyone is concerned about this move.


Maybe the concern is Denver is trying to make things better, while Carl is concerned that parking is too cheap and the stadium is full...

Not saying it is the truth, but the feeling is they are trying to win superbowls at all cost, while we sit around and enjoy our medocrity.....

Warrior5
06-08-2007, 11:33 AM
Not sure why anyone is concerned about this move.

I'm certainly not...Kennedy's probably just a greedy SOB traitor anyway.

HemiEd
06-08-2007, 11:33 AM
This is starting to get comical.

OnTheWarpath58
06-08-2007, 11:33 AM
Maybe the concern is Denver is trying to make things better, while Carl is concerned that parking is too cheap and the stadium is full...

Not saying it is the truth, but the feeling is they are trying to win superbowls at all cost...

By stocking their roster with underachieving castoffs?

This move did nothing to help the Donks make the playoffs, much less win a SB.

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 11:33 AM
Maybe the concern is Denver is trying to make things better, while Carl is concerned that parking is too cheap and the stadium is full...

Not saying it is the truth, but the feeling is they are trying to win superbowls at all cost, while we sit around and enjoy our medocrity.....

Uh, whatever. You know that's not true.

Reerun_KC
06-08-2007, 11:34 AM
By stocking their roster with underachieving castoffs?

This move did nothing to help the Donks make the playoffs, much less win a SB.

I didnt say it was the truth, I said the feeling is they are trying harder than we are...

That is the preception I get... Never said it was the truth or not...

Reerun_KC
06-08-2007, 11:35 AM
Uh, whatever. You know that's not true.


See post #17

Baby Lee
06-08-2007, 11:38 AM
Maybe the concern is Denver is trying to make things better, while Carl is concerned that parking is too cheap and the stadium is full...

Not saying it is the truth, but the feeling is they are trying to win superbowls at all cost, while we sit around and enjoy our medocrity.....
The Redskins, and more recently the Broncos, have disabused all but the most facile football fan of the notion that making big waves in free-agency is the same thing as trying to win the SB at all costs.

Reerun_KC
06-08-2007, 11:39 AM
The Redskins, and more recently the Broncos, have disabused all but the most facile football fan of the notion that making big waves in free-agency is the same thing as trying to win the SB at all costs.


But you see from a fans perspective where one would think that?

I would rather do it Herms way, Cut the dead weight and build through the draft IMO....

CoMoChief
06-08-2007, 11:46 AM
I dont see what the big deal is, the Broncos have been trading for former first rd DT busts for a few yrs now. Jimmy Kennedy is TERRIBLE. I would almost take Ryan Sims over him.

the Talking Can
06-08-2007, 11:48 AM
sounds like sims....from 1st round to 6th round pick in 4 years

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 11:48 AM
Maybe the concern is Denver is trying to make things better, while Carl is concerned that parking is too cheap and the stadium is full...

Not saying it is the truth, but the feeling is they are trying to win superbowls at all cost, while we sit around and enjoy our medocrity.....

Actually, to the more astute football fan, the Broncos recent trading away more picks than the Redskins looks more like DESPERATION rather than an actual attempt to get better...

the Talking Can
06-08-2007, 11:49 AM
the truth is we're rebuilding through the draft and stockpiling draft picks....the way it should be done...

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 11:50 AM
Actually, to the more astute football fan, the Broncos recent trading away more picks than the Redskins looks more like DESPERATION rather than an actual attempt to get better...

Bingo.

I've been saying it for two offseasons now. The Broncos are trade crazy for some reason.

the Talking Can
06-08-2007, 11:51 AM
Bingo.

I've been saying it for two offseasons now. The Broncos are trade crazy for some reason.

because they think they're one piece away....always one piece away...fools gold

RedThat
06-08-2007, 12:01 PM
the truth is we're rebuilding through the draft and stockpiling draft picks....the way it should be done...

Yup...you said it right there.

And finally, it's about damn time we see this team take a smart approach towards building a team.

I was sick of seeing us give away our draft picks before all the time.

the Talking Can
06-08-2007, 12:02 PM
I was sick of seeing us give away our draft picks before all the time.

amen brother

Garcia Bronco
06-08-2007, 12:04 PM
If you guys cannot see the value in bringing in as much competition as possible...well...that explains a great deal. :)

pikesome
06-08-2007, 12:06 PM
If you guys cannot see the value in bringing in as much competition as possible...well...that explains a great deal. :)

If it wasn't for the draft picks involved you'd have a point.

Bowser
06-08-2007, 12:06 PM
If you guys cannot see the value in bringing in as much competition as possible...well...that explains a great deal. :)

We had no idea that Denver was envious of the 1998 Chiefs.

Pitt Gorilla
06-08-2007, 12:07 PM
We could have made the same "trade" by simply keeping Sims. OMG, he's 300+ lbs!!!1

Chiefnj
06-08-2007, 12:08 PM
A mid to late 6th round pick for a rotational DT that could improve slightly in a new system? A win for both the Rams and Broncos.

Garcia Bronco
06-08-2007, 12:09 PM
If it wasn't for the draft picks involved you'd have a point.

A sixth round pick is hardly a draft pick in this instance. Further more we are going to a different scheme defensively which will require us to use a different kind of lineman...bigger DT's and so forth.

pikesome
06-08-2007, 12:13 PM
A sixth round pick is hardly a draft pick in this instance. Further more we are going to a different scheme defensively which will require us to use a different kind of lineman...bigger DT's and so forth.

That 6th might be throw away but so is the player. If you keep the pick you could throw it away or bundle and trade for a player who doesn't suck or a different pick.

Ebolapox
06-08-2007, 12:36 PM
A sixth round pick is hardly a draft pick in this instance.

tom brady and terrell davis say you're a dumbass

beer bacon
06-08-2007, 12:40 PM
A sixth round pick is hardly a draft pick in this instance. Further more we are going to a different scheme defensively which will require us to use a different kind of lineman...bigger DT's and so forth.

It sounds to me like Kennedy doesn't play like a big DT. A lot of poundage doesn't mean the guy will play big on the field.

crazycoffey
06-08-2007, 01:07 PM
Hopefully another bust trade for the donks....

ClevelandBronco
06-08-2007, 01:24 PM
We wanted to get a washed up former Pro Bowl quarterback for that sixth, but they were all taken.

CoMoChief
06-08-2007, 01:39 PM
If you guys cannot see the value in bringing in as much competition as possible...well...that explains a great deal. :)

Jimmy Kennedy sucks. It makes no sense to bring a guy in for competition when he absolutely sucks. He gets blown off of the ball more than just about any DT in this league.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-08-2007, 01:41 PM
We wanted to get a washed up former Pro Bowl quarterback for that sixth, but they were all taken.

As opposed to your last QB, who isn't worth a jiz mop?

vailpass
06-08-2007, 01:41 PM
tom brady and terrell davis say you're a dumbass
LMAO Good point though they are obviously the exceptions to the rule.

Spicy McHaggis
06-08-2007, 01:45 PM
I don't get this move. From what I had surmised this offseason the Broncos were only interested in defensive linemen from Florida with substance abuse issues.

manchambo
06-08-2007, 01:45 PM
tom brady and terrell davis say you're a dumbass
Those two players are a wonderful basis for ascertaining the value of a 6th round pick. You would be a wonderful GM.

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 01:48 PM
If you guys cannot see the value in bringing in as much competition as possible...well...that explains a great deal. :)

Oh I certainly see the value in it.

It's the shotgun approach. Bring in 14 tackles with question marks about work ethic or attitude and hope that 1 or 2 pans out.

vailpass
06-08-2007, 01:56 PM
As opposed to your last QB, who isn't worth a jiz mop?

So if a QB who was traded for a 4th rounder isn't worth a jiz mop.......

Garcia Bronco
06-08-2007, 01:58 PM
tom brady and terrell davis say you're a dumbass

that's also the exception rather than the norm. Based on our recent drafting record...the sixth round is not where we do our winning.

Garcia Bronco
06-08-2007, 01:59 PM
It sounds to me like Kennedy doesn't play like a big DT. A lot of poundage doesn't mean the guy will play big on the field.

Perhaps...it doesn't sound like he's been all that productive. Obviously this is his last or next to last chance.

Garcia Bronco
06-08-2007, 02:00 PM
Jimmy Kennedy sucks. It makes no sense to bring a guy in for competition when he absolutely sucks. He gets blown off of the ball more than just about any DT in this league.

Well that's where hopefully this motivates him. It's obvious he has the size and mostly likely the strength.

Garcia Bronco
06-08-2007, 02:03 PM
Oh I certainly see the value in it.

It's the shotgun approach. Bring in 14 tackles with question marks about work ethic or attitude and hope that 1 or 2 pans out.

Well again...we are changing to a scheme that requires more size from the DT position. While a former 1st rounder for a 6th isn't optimal, it's still a step toward our desired end...which is more size in the middle. The best guy we got from a FA DT perspective is Sam Adams...provided he's healthy he'll make it a 9 to 10 matchup in our favor. on Sundays.

Baby Lee
06-08-2007, 02:05 PM
As opposed to your last QB, who isn't worth a jiz mop?
Hey!! At least a jiz mop carries the potential to save some perv from breaking his back slipping on unmopped jiz.

Fruit Ninja
06-08-2007, 02:06 PM
i dont see how this is a bad deal for the broncos. wow they gave out a 6th. Yes, Brady and Davis were drafted late, but thats like a 1 out of 2000 shot its going to happen that way.

Ebolapox
06-08-2007, 02:43 PM
oh, I'm glad they traded their sixth... that, and let's face it--larry johnson has a NEW BEST FRIEND!

Mile High Mania
06-08-2007, 02:46 PM
I don't mind the move at all... sure, they gave up a 6th round pick and while there are many great examples of steals in the 6th round (Denver has had many late draft gems)... I think it's worth a shot.

Who knows if it will work out, but they're trying to fix an issue from the last few years. I like that they have a bunch of guys in there and hopefully a few of them work out.

Shanahan has only had 1 losing year in his tenure with Denver... so, he's earned the right to take the risks in my opinion.

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 02:55 PM
Who knows if it will work out, but they're trying to fix an issue from the last few years. I like that they have a bunch of guys in there and hopefully a few of them work out.

That's my issue with it right there.

It's been a problem for the "last few years". The problem is that this isn't a fresh approach.

Once again, they're throwing a bunch of underachievers that have worn out their welcome elsewhere against the wall and hoping it pans out.

Why would it work this time when it hasn't worked before? Law of averages?

Mile High Mania
06-08-2007, 02:59 PM
That's my issue with it right there.

It's been a problem for the "last few years". The problem is that this isn't a fresh approach.

Once again, they're throwing a bunch of underachievers that have worn out their welcome elsewhere against the wall and hoping it pans out.

Why would it work this time when it hasn't worked before? Law of averages?

I don't know, but if you look back to the 95-96 seasons when Shanahan first started building talent on that team, he used a number of guys that many questioned. It worked out.

We'll see if this is different, at least he isn't focusing on one team this time around to pick his talent. :harumph:

Plus, they're working under Bates now and not Coyer... maybe Bates has a more sound philosophy on how best to use these guys.

Garcia Bronco
06-08-2007, 03:01 PM
oh, I'm glad they traded their sixth... that, and let's face it--larry johnson has a NEW BEST FRIEND!
LOL

Mile High Mania
06-08-2007, 03:04 PM
Oh and Sam Adams isn't an underachiever... he's just fat and old. :p

Garcia Bronco
06-08-2007, 03:12 PM
Oh and Sam Adams isn't an underachiever... he's just fat and old. :p

He's not old either.

Mile High Mania
06-08-2007, 03:15 PM
He's not old either.

34?

Garcia Bronco
06-08-2007, 03:17 PM
34?

Hey...you are only as old as you feel.

Splat420
06-08-2007, 03:18 PM
He's not old either.

WTH?

Mile High Mania
06-08-2007, 03:18 PM
Hey...you are only as old as you feel.

Well, 14 year veteran DLineman pushing 350 lbs in thin air... I imagine he feels old. I'm not saying it was a bad signing at all, but to suggest he isn't old by NFL standards is crazy.

Simply Red
06-08-2007, 03:20 PM
Oh and Sam Adams isn't an underachiever... he's just fat and old. :p
yep, wrong side of thirty.

Garcia Bronco
06-08-2007, 03:23 PM
Well, 14 year veteran DLineman pushing 350 lbs in thin air... I imagine he feels old. I'm not saying it was a bad signing at all, but to suggest he isn't old by NFL standards is crazy.

Based on his role..age is less of a factor than say at runningback or fullback.

beer bacon
06-08-2007, 03:26 PM
Well, 14 year veteran DLineman pushing 350 lbs in thin air... I imagine he feels old. I'm not saying it was a bad signing at all, but to suggest he isn't old by NFL standards is crazy.

Garcia meant that you are only as old as you say you feel.

Mile High Mania
06-08-2007, 03:38 PM
Based on his role..age is less of a factor than say at runningback or fullback.

Right, which is why the Adams' signing and guys like Kennedy, etc don't bother me much. I gotta trust Shanahan and Bates has done well at nearly every other stop.

HemiEd
06-08-2007, 04:21 PM
I am pretty sure Dalton, Siavii and Freeman are available. Heck, you never know, it could work out.

Direckshun
06-08-2007, 05:03 PM
...and the Broncos have now switched into Self Parody Gear.

Basileus777
06-08-2007, 07:05 PM
Based on his role..age is less of a factor than say at runningback or fullback.

You do realize that Adams was cut by the Bengals, who have a terrible run defense, for being old and useless?

Kaylore
06-08-2007, 07:12 PM
That's my issue with it right there.

It's been a problem for the "last few years". The problem is that this isn't a fresh approach.

Once again, they're throwing a bunch of underachievers that have worn out their welcome elsewhere against the wall and hoping it pans out.

Why would it work this time when it hasn't worked before? Law of averages?
You'd be right if we didn't draft four first day talents to also fill the position. Kennedy is someone who might fill a role but if you think that the coaching staff is looking for him or Adams to be some kind of D-line savior, you're really mistaken. We're talking about a vet minimum tackle in Adams and a sixth for a first round bust who can probably still be a rotational guy. We changed defensive systems so we have to overhaul what we're doing up front. That means switching to a two gap in the middle with less stunting and movement and more power. When you change schemes you have to bring in personnel that can execute the scheme or your depth is going to be crappy. This isn't Madden where X player = 84 and he will be an 84 whether he's in a 3-4 a 4-3 or a Bears 46.

See the difference between the Chiefs and Denver is that when Denver changes defensive coordinators, we go out and bring in the parts he needs to work with the same year he's brought in. That way he's given a fair shake from the first season. You guys signed Gunther and then did nothing personnel-wise his first year. That was a complete waste. Then you brought in Herm and now just as the defense is making progress your offense is gone.

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 07:40 PM
Then you brought in Herm and now just as the defense is making progress your offense is gone.

Our offense was better than Denver's last year, dumbass.

Is Denver's offense "gone," too? :rolleyes:

ClevelandBronco
06-08-2007, 07:42 PM
Our offense was better than Denver's last year, dumbass.

Is Denver's offense "gone," too? :rolleyes:

Yes, thank heavens.

But it's been replaced.

Mile High Mania
06-08-2007, 08:00 PM
Our offense was better than Denver's last year, dumbass.

Is Denver's offense "gone," too? :rolleyes:

Denver vs KC - Offense in 2006

Yards per game - KC 321.4 / Denver 309.4 (Congrats on the 12 more yards per game)

Yards per play avg - both teams had 5.1 ypp

3rd down % - KC had 40.6% and Denver 37% (Overwhelming)

TOP - KC had 30 minutes and 6 sec / Denver 29 minutes and 50 sec (congrats on the 16 more seconds of TOP)

Passing offense - both teams in the bottom half of the league. KC = 187.5 per game / Denver = 174.9 per game

Rushing offense - Denver had 134.5 ypg / KC had 133.9 pg and KC had 5 more rushing TDs than Denver.

So, really ... in 2006 neither team had much to brag about and overall it was pretty close.
-----

2007 - Cutler for a full year, add Henry and Graham... Walker has a full year in the system, Marshall has more experience, add Stokely for depth. Signs are pointing up for the offense.

Tribal Warfare
06-08-2007, 08:02 PM
terrell davis say you're a dumbass


OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kaylore
06-08-2007, 08:55 PM
Our offense was better than Denver's last year, dumbass.

So? Denver's offense sucked last year. Lepsis was out most of the season and the passing game was garbage until Cutler stepped in. Your offense sucked too and saying it sucked less that ours doesn't disprove my point. I'm sure if you asked people around here if they were satisfied with the Chiefs offense you'd get a resounding "no".

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 08:58 PM
If you say our offense is "gone" you have to apply the same logic to yours. What did you guys do to get better? You added a retread RB. Woohoo!

Meanwhile we upgraded at left tackle and added a stud WR in the draft.

Our offense is far from "gone."

Mecca
06-08-2007, 09:02 PM
I think by "gone" he means what it was compared to now........The Broncos and Chiefs are neither offfensive juggernauts but the Broncos were never what the Chiefs were on offense recently so the fall isn't as drastic.

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 09:05 PM
You'd be right if we didn't draft four first day talents to also fill the position.

Two of your three "first day talents" have HUGE question marks.

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 09:07 PM
I think by "gone" he means what it was compared to now........The Broncos and Chiefs are neither offfensive juggernauts but the Broncos were never what the Chiefs were on offense recently so the fall isn't as drastic.

No. He's convinced himself this offseason that Brodie Croyle will throw 20 interceptions in the eight games he manages to play uninjured. And that LJ will have a thousand injuries. And that Kennison sucks and Dwayne Bowe is Sylvester Morris and we should have kept Jordan Black.

OctoberFart
06-08-2007, 09:09 PM
If you say our offense is "gone" you have to apply the same logic to yours. What did you guys do to get better? You added a retread RB. Woohoo!

Meanwhile we upgraded at left tackle and added a stud WR in the draft.

Our offense is far from "gone."


Upgraded LT? At best by not very much. If reallife were Madden you would replaced a 60 player with a 65.

Mecca
06-08-2007, 09:09 PM
Well......Croyle probably will throw more INT's than TD's more 1st year starters do.....

And I think LJ will get injured....and probably not be as productive....

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 09:15 PM
Well......Croyle probably will throw more INT's than TD's more 1st year starters do.....

And I think LJ will get injured....and probably not be as productive....

Most first-year starters throw more INT's than TD's? Even ones that spent a year learning the system first?

Drew Bress didn't.
Aaron Brooks didn't.
Marc Bulger didn't.
Jason Campbell didn't.

That's as far as I got with starting QB's before I decided that you're wrong.

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 09:16 PM
Upgraded LT? At best by not very much. If reallife were Madden you would replaced a 60 player with a 65.

What part of 13 sacks vs 5.5 do you not understand?

Suffice it to say the Raiders would kill for a left tackle as good as Damion McIntosh. Who are you guys lining up this year to protect JaMarcus Bustell's blindside? Gallery? ROFL

Mecca
06-08-2007, 09:17 PM
I'm sure we all hope he turns out like Aaron Brooks.....All of these guys also were working with more talent on offense than we are except Brees who they thought sucked so much they took another QB before he finally showed he could play.

Kaylore
06-08-2007, 09:20 PM
No. He's convinced himself this offseason that Brodie Croyle will throw 20 interceptions in the eight games he manages to play uninjured. And that LJ will have a thousand injuries. And that Kennison sucks and Dwayne Bowe is Sylvester Morris and we should have kept Jordan Black.
That's not true. I think Larry Johnson will have just one injury. Every running back who has rushed for over 400 carries has been injured the following year and only Erik Dickerson was able to come back. He wasn't a power back like the others. Larry Johnson's days are numbered.

And yes, Brodie Croyle is going to really struggle. And your line isn't very good and Dwayne Bowe is a rookie and a raw one at that so he'll need at least year to get going. Eddie Kennison is old and so is Tony G. Couple that with a play call of run, run, pass, punt, run, run, pass, punt and yes, I think your offense is going to suck.

As for us, we're a Shanahan offense. We were top three with Jake Plummer, Mike Anderson, Jeb Putzier, Rod Smith and Ashley Lelie.

Now we have Jay Cutler, Travis Henry, Danial Graham, Tony Scheffler, Javon Walker, Brandon Marshall, Brandon Stokely and Rod Smith. So yes: I think our offense will be back. It already was once Jay took over. Our offense the last four games of the season was one of the best in the league.

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 09:25 PM
Our offense the last four games of the season was one of the best in the league.

You have such an overinflated opinion of Denver's offense. It's comical. Go ahead and tell me how awesome it was in the season finale.

Best in the league? They averaged 24.8 ppg...solid, but hardly elite. There will be some growing pains this year for sure.

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 09:26 PM
Heh...you actually pimped Brandon Stokely and Rod Smith....they might combine for 500 yards of offense...maybe...

Mile High Mania
06-08-2007, 09:26 PM
Retread RB... that's greatness.

Mile High Mania
06-08-2007, 09:27 PM
You have such an overinflated opinion of Denver's offense. It's comical. Go ahead and tell me how awesome it was in the season finale.

Best in the league? They averaged 24.8 ppg...solid, but hardly elite. There will be some growing pains this year for sure.

Back at ya big boy... how did that KC offense do in the wildcard round?

Kaylore
06-08-2007, 09:29 PM
Heh...you actually pimped Brandon Stokely and Rod Smith....they might combine for 500 yards of offense...maybe...
They're third wide receivers whereas on your offense they'd be competing for starting time.

Fact is that everything I've said is true and all you have to do is throw stones from a glass house completely ignoring the other things I wrote in my original post. Who's deflecting now, boob?

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 09:32 PM
They're third wide receivers whereas on your offense they'd be competing for starting time.


Bullshit they would. Neither of those guys would sniff our 53-man roster.

The way I see it the Chiefs and Broncos are in the same boat on offense...both are trying to rebuild. Denver has the edge in coaching, the Chiefs have the edge in talent.

listopencil
06-08-2007, 09:35 PM
The way I see it the Chiefs and Broncos are in the same boat on offense...both are trying to rebuild. Denver has the edge in coaching, the Chiefs have the edge in talent.


Put down the crack pipe and slowly walk away. You've just made your annual "Dumbest Post Of The Off Season".

Kaylore
06-08-2007, 09:36 PM
Bullshit they would. Neither of those guys would sniff our 53-man roster.

The way I see it the Chiefs and Broncos are in the same boat on offense...both are trying to rebuild. Denver has the edge in coaching, the Chiefs have the edge in talent.
That post is a joke. I think deep down you know you guys are screwed. Everyone else here can see it. You're just squinting your eyes really tightly and playing make-believe. No QB, No receiver, an old tight end and a running back who is racist, wants to play in New York, and whose knees are about explode. Good luck with that.

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 09:37 PM
I'm sure we all hope he turns out like Aaron Brooks.....All of these guys also were working with more talent on offense than we are except Brees who they thought sucked so much they took another QB before he finally showed he could play.

Don't try to make it a moving target, you're smarter than that.

You said most 1st-year QB's throw more INT's than TD's. Clearly, you're wrong.

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 09:38 PM
You folks are seriously counting your chickens before they're hatched...Walker is the only legit stud on that offense, the rest are either has-been's or players with potential that need seasoning. The '03 Chiefs they ain't.

KcMizzou
06-08-2007, 09:38 PM
I think deep down you know you guys are screwed. Everyone else here can see it. You're just squinting your eyes really tightly and playing make-believe. No QB, No receiver, an old tight end and a running back who is racist, wants to play in New York, and whose knees are about explode. Good luck with that.LMAO

Gochiefs must have you all riled up. Now you're just being silly.

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 09:39 PM
They're third wide receivers whereas on your offense they'd be competing for starting time.

Fact is that everything I've said is true and all you have to do is throw stones from a glass house completely ignoring the other things I wrote in my original post. Who's deflecting now, boob?

GoChief's ridiculousness aside, you're in no position to talk.

You're just as big of a homer as he is.

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 09:40 PM
Kaylore really, really wants Santa Claus to bring him an offense this year...and maybe a playoff berth. Watching the Broncos play second fiddle to the Chiefs last year wasn't easy for him.

listopencil
06-08-2007, 09:44 PM
Kaylore really, really wants Santa Claus to bring him an offense this year...and maybe a playoff berth. Watching the Broncos play second fiddle to the Chiefs last year wasn't easy for him.


Nah, watching you guys back into the playoffs and implode made up for it. Watching SD go belly up actually made me chuckle. Fond memories aside, your Offense is in deep shit. Ours should be better.

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 09:46 PM
Haha...deep shit, right. Our offense is in much better shape than it was a year ago. There's no question.

listopencil
06-08-2007, 09:50 PM
Haha...deep shit, right. Our offense is in much better shape than it was a year ago. There's no question.

Do you mean before or after Trent Green was injured?

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 09:51 PM
It doesn't really matter...either/or.

listopencil
06-08-2007, 09:55 PM
It doesn't really matter...either/or.


So you think whoever you have at QB is going to be better than a completely healthy Green? Amazing.

And by last year are you referring to before, during or after LJ's 400+ carries?

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 09:57 PM
So you think whoever you have at QB is going to be better than a completely healthy Green? Amazing.

And by last year are you referring to before, during or after LJ's 400+ carries?

As a Bronco fan, I can understand why you don't fully comprehend the wonder that is Jordan Black.

ClevelandBronco
06-08-2007, 09:58 PM
Neither of those guys would sniff our 53-man roster.

Stokely and Smith? I think you're the one sniffing. Glue.

listopencil
06-08-2007, 10:00 PM
As a Bronco fan, I can understand why you don't fully comprehend the wonder that is Jordan Black.

So you're one of the KC fans that think your O-Line is going to be better this year than last? We dumped our shitty RT, by the way.

OctoberFart
06-08-2007, 10:03 PM
What part of 13 sacks vs 5.5 do you not understand?

Suffice it to say the Raiders would kill for a left tackle as good as Damion McIntosh. Who are you guys lining up this year to protect JaMarcus Bustell's blindside? Gallery? ROFL
What part of McIntosh is mediocre do you not understand? I'll bet you McIntosh has a worse year than Gallery and gives up more sacks. Gallery sucks too.

KcMizzou
06-08-2007, 10:05 PM
I'll bet you McIntosh has a worse year than Gallery and gives up more sacks. Gallery sucks too.Oh how the mighty have fallen.

LMAO

pikesome
06-08-2007, 10:07 PM
Oh how the mighty have fallen.

LMAO

Wasn't he the one, can miss prospect from that draft?

listopencil
06-08-2007, 10:10 PM
I was saving this for later but 3/4 of the AFC West is being represented so;

You Will Suffer Humiliation When The Sports Team From My Area Defeats The Sports Team From Your Area

As you can see from the calendar, the game is coming up. I'm sure you are as excited for it as I am, as our cities are rivals and have been for quite some time. Your confidence in your team is high, but rest assured, you will suffer humiliation when the sports team from my area defeats the sports team from your area.

On numerous occasions, you have expressed the conviction that your area's sports team will be victorious. I must admit that every time I hear you make this proclamation, I react with both laughter and disbelief. "Ha!" I say to myself with laughter. "What?!" I say to myself in disbelief. How could you believe that your sports team could beat my sports team? It is clear that yours is inferior in every way.

When the sporting contest begins, the players on your team will be treated as though they are inconsequential. It will be remarkably easy for my team to accumulate more points than yours. There are many reasons for this, starting with the inferior physical attributes of the players representing your area. Strength, speed, and agility are just three of the qualities that the players on the team from your area lack. The players representing my area, on the other hand, have these traits in abundance.

I would not be a bit surprised if the individuals on the team from your area were sexually attracted to members of their own gender. That is how ineffective they are on the field of battle.

Underscoring your team's inferiority is its choice of colors. It is ludicrous to believe that your team's colors inspire either respect or fear. Instead, they appear to have been chosen by someone who is colorblind or, perhaps, bereft of sight altogether. The colors for my team, on the other hand, are aesthetically pleasing when placed in proximity to one another. They are a superior color combination in every way.

While we are on the subject of aesthetics, let us compare the respective facilities in which our teams play. While my team's edifice is blessed with architectural splendor and the most modern of amenities, yours is a thoroughly unpleasant place in which to watch a sporting contest. I know of what I speak, for I once attended a game between our respective teams in your facility. Let's just say the experience left me wishing that my car was inoperable that day due to mechanical problems, rendering it impossible for me to get to your area to attend the game.

If you need another reason why the sporting franchise representing my area is superior, look no further than the supporters for the two sides. Not only are the supporters of the team from my region more spirited, but they are also more intelligent and of finer breeding than you and the rest of your ilk. In addition, the female supporters of the team from my area possess more attractive countenances and figures than yours. Some of the women from my side that I have observed could make a living by posing for pictures for major men's magazines. The women who cheer for your team, I'm afraid, are far too unattractive to do so.

One of the more pathetic aspects of the team from your area is the fact that only people in your immediate area possess an affinity for it. By means of contrast, the team from my area inspires loyalty and affection in individuals who live in many other geographic locations.

To illustrate this point, let me tell a brief story: Recently, I was on vacation in an area of the country far away from my own, and I saw many individuals wearing items of clothing that bore the insignia of my team. I approached one such individual and asked him if he originated from my area. He said no, explaining that he simply liked the team from my area and had for many years. Interestingly enough, during this trip, I saw no clothing or other paraphernalia bearing the insignia of your team.

Do you still doubt that the team from your area is inferior to the one from mine? Just look at our teams' respective histories. In the past, we have defeated you on any number of occasions. Granted, there were times when your team beat my team, but those were lucky flukes.

The day of the game will soon be at hand. And no matter how hard you pray to a higher power or how many foam accoutrements you wear in support of the team from your area, your team will be defeated. We will win and you will lose. This is your fate.

Prepare for humiliation. It shall be upon you at the designated hour.

KcMizzou
06-08-2007, 10:14 PM
I love The Onion.

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 10:17 PM
Stokely and Smith? I think you're the one sniffing. Glue.

Both are done. We have far more talented receivers down the depth chart. And neither would challenge for a starting position.

ClevelandBronco
06-08-2007, 10:22 PM
Both are done. We have far more talented receivers down the depth chart. And neither would challenge for a starting position.

You ought to bump up those "far more talented receivers down the depth chart" then. Your starters suck dead rhinoceros dick.

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 10:26 PM
You ought to bump up those "far more talented receivers down the depth chart" then. Your starters suck dead rhinoceros dick.

Astute analysis.

ClevelandBronco
06-08-2007, 10:42 PM
You ought to bump up those "far more talented receivers down the depth chart" then. Your starters suck dead rhinoceros dick.

I would have quoted your response, GoChiefs, but I'm a better writer. I'd rather read my stuff twice.

Kennison 53 for 860. 16.2 avg. 5 TDs. Long: 51
Parker 41 for 561. 13.7 avg. 1 TD. Long: 43
Gardner 2 for 17. 8.5 avg. What the hell is a TD? Long: 13

Walker 69 for 1,080*. 15.7 avg. 8 TDs. Long: 83
*(No GoChiefs, that's not a typo. Some #1 receivers get more than 1,000 yards.)
Smith 52 for 512. 9.8 avg. 3 TDs. Long: 20
Marshall 20 for 309. 15.5 avg. 2 TDs. Long: 71

If the Broncos are in trouble, your starters passed trouble a while back.

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 10:46 PM
Posting last year's stats is completely meaningless.

Brandon Stokely and Rod Smith have no place in KC. None. I'm insulted you think the Chiefs need their over-the-hill asses. Neither is a productive player at this point.

ClevelandBronco
06-08-2007, 10:49 PM
Posting last year's stats is completely meaningless.

Brandon Stokely and Rod Smith have no place in KC. None. I'm insulted you think the Chiefs need their over-the-hill asses. Neither is a productive player at this point.

Astute analysis.

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 10:53 PM
You're ignorant. Rod Gardner won't even make our final roster. I bet you can't even name the player who will likely be our 4th receiver at the moment. I'd take him over Peyton Manning's butt buddy for sure.

listopencil
06-08-2007, 11:08 PM
Posting last year's stats is completely meaningless.






Somebody really should bookmark this.

ClevelandBronco
06-08-2007, 11:09 PM
I bet you can't even name the player who will likely be our 4th receiver at the moment.

I don't know. Do you want Rod Smith or Brandon Stokely?

We want a #2. Offer us a #6 but settle later for a #5 that could become a #4. Look, have your people call our people.

ClevelandBronco
06-08-2007, 11:10 PM
Somebody really should bookmark this.

No doubt. Last year's stat king doesn't want to hear it.

Count Alex's Losses
06-08-2007, 11:13 PM
It's irrelevant. Our #2 last year will be lucky to be the #3 this year.

listopencil
06-08-2007, 11:15 PM
It's irrelevant. Our #2 last year will be lucky to be the #3 this year.

Why, are you trading him to a team with a good offense?

Direckshun
06-08-2007, 11:30 PM
Why, are you trading him to a team with a good offense?
Mainly because he's a stone-handed underachiever that will have to battle a slew of up-and-comers who've shown more speed and promise.

And because we drafted Dwayne Bowe.

Direckshun
06-08-2007, 11:31 PM
I don't know. Do you want Rod Smith or Brandon Stokely?

We want a #2. Offer us a #6 but settle later for a #5 that could become a #4. Look, have your people call our people.
Hey, credit where credit is due. We kicked the Fins' asses.

ClevelandBronco
06-08-2007, 11:34 PM
Hey, credit where credit is due. We kicked the Fins' asses.

It was good value, but let's see what you do with it first.

Direckshun
06-08-2007, 11:37 PM
It was good value, but let's see what you do with it first.
It was good value, end of story. We kicked their asses.

Credit where credit is due.

ClevelandBronco
06-08-2007, 11:42 PM
It was good value, end of story. We kicked their asses.

Credit where credit is due.

Not if you draft an Elvis Grbac with it.

Ebolapox
06-08-2007, 11:44 PM
Not if you draft an Elvis Grbac with it.

:spock:

san francisco called, they say they drafted grbitch

Direckshun
06-08-2007, 11:45 PM
Not if you draft an Elvis Grbac with it.
Using that logic, you wouldn't even applaud us if we had traded him for two firsts and a third, because there's a possibility they could work out to be unproductive. :p

Men give credit where credit is due. Homer fanboys don't.

ClevelandBronco
06-08-2007, 11:46 PM
:spock:

san francisco called, they say they drafted grbitch

Okay, not if you trade it for an Elvis Grbac.

ClevelandBronco
06-08-2007, 11:47 PM
Using that logic, you wouldn't even applaud us if we had traded him for two firsts and a third, because there's a possibility they could work out to be unproductive. :p

Men give credit where credit is due. Homer fanboys don't.

You got good value. Credit where credit's due.

End of story.

Direckshun
06-08-2007, 11:48 PM
You got good value. Credit where credit's due.

End of story.
I can sense the pain inside you.

ClevelandBronco
06-08-2007, 11:52 PM
I can sense the pain inside you.

I'm just waiting for you to draft an Elvis Grbac.

"Now go home and get your shine box!"

http://movies.toptenreviews.com/actors/images/actors/a174481.jpg

Easy 6
06-08-2007, 11:56 PM
This is the kind of Donk vs. :arrow: throwdown thread that we've had far too little of around here lately.

We will swoop down on you cheatin Donx like hate fueled Sioux & Cheyenne warriors on Custer, we will purify you in a Sweat Lodge of PAIN!!!

:cuss: :mad: :grr: :# %(/ :reaper: :$2500:

ClevelandBronco
06-08-2007, 11:57 PM
This is the kind of Donk vs. :arrow: throwdown thread that we've had far too little of around here lately.

We will swoop down on you cheatin Donx like hate fueled Sioux & Cheyenne warriors on Custer, we will purify you in a Sweat Lodge of PAIN!!!

:cuss: :mad: :grr: :# %(/ :reaper: :$2500:

We'll be sure to make "reservations."

Easy 6
06-08-2007, 11:59 PM
We'll be sure to make "reservations."

BA DUM BUMP CHING!!!

Direckshun
06-09-2007, 12:00 AM
I'm just waiting for you to draft an Elvis Grbac.
Our current administration has a pretty good drafting record, compadre.

Not to mention we actually utilize our picks on the Draft, rather than Jamie Kennedy.

Ebolapox
06-09-2007, 12:04 AM
ROFL

<img src="http://www.oiskarudeboy.com/blog/wp-content/B000FZETEI.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V66888540_.jpeg">

blueballs
06-09-2007, 12:08 AM
attack of the killer road apples

htismaqe
06-09-2007, 06:46 AM
So you're one of the KC fans that think your O-Line is going to be better this year than last? We dumped our shitty RT, by the way.

The Chiefs gave up 41 sacks last year.

Jordan Black gave up 13. Worst in the league.

Will Shields gave up 6, he was a shell of his former self.

Chris Terry was a solid tackle in Carolina and it looks like his off-field problems are behind him.

Any reasonable person would believe the OL will be better than last year.

CoMoChief
06-09-2007, 10:37 AM
Upgraded LT? At best by not very much. If reallife were Madden you would replaced a 60 player with a 65.


Too bad Madden has no effect on the real world then huh?

CoMoChief
06-09-2007, 10:49 AM
That post is a joke. I think deep down you know you guys are screwed. Everyone else here can see it. You're just squinting your eyes really tightly and playing make-believe. No QB, No receiver, an old tight end and a running back who is racist, wants to play in New York, and whose knees are about explode. Good luck with that.

Were you drunk when you posted this?

rad
06-09-2007, 11:00 AM
KC's defense will not allow Denver to score more than 10 pts. this year, per game.

OctoberFart
06-09-2007, 11:26 AM
Too bad Madden has no effect on the real world then huh?
No shi\!t but KC replaced one bum with another.

Easy 6
06-09-2007, 11:32 AM
No shi\!t but KC replaced one bum with another.

This is easily the most ignorant post of the week, congratulations!!!

SNR
06-09-2007, 11:33 AM
No shi\!t but KC replaced one bum with another.Bum? Damien McIntosh started all 16 games last year and gave up FEWER sacks than Walter Jones. Does that mean Walter Jones is a bum, too?

And lay off us. Not all teams have the privelage of drafting in the top 5 every year and taking supahstah premier left tackles like Robert Gallery. :rolleyes:

OctoberFart
06-09-2007, 11:40 AM
where do you guys get these sack stats anyway?

SNR
06-09-2007, 11:41 AM
Nah, watching you guys back into the playoffs and implode made up for it. Watching SD go belly up actually made me chuckle. Fond memories aside, your Offense is in deep shit. Ours should be better.We're just trying to build our own program of "playoff success" like you guys have enjoyed since Elway. It starts with one bad game against the Colts, leads to several more first round losses against the Colts, and finally ends with the Super Bowl.

Rly.

SNR
06-09-2007, 11:42 AM
where do you guys get these sack stats anyway?http://www.google.com

You should be able to figure out the rest.

milkman
06-09-2007, 11:45 AM
You should be able to figure out the rest.

That's a joke, right?

OctoberFart
06-09-2007, 11:46 AM
http://www.google.com

You should be able to figure out the rest.

Yeah I know where to find team sacks allowed but where do you guys get all of these individual player sacks allowed stats.

Count Alex's Losses
06-09-2007, 01:01 PM
Yeah I know where to find team sacks allowed but where do you guys get all of these individual player sacks allowed stats.

http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/index.asp