PDA

View Full Version : NFLTA: Chiefs State of the Franchise


evolve27
03-07-2008, 06:45 PM
For those of you who don't have NFL Network like me. Here is NFL.com's current take of the Chiefs.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d8071862f


NFLTA: Chiefs Needs
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80716f4f

NFLTA: Top 10 Chiefs Plays
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80718b7b

Tribal Warfare
03-07-2008, 07:14 PM
Just what I thought, Marshall only had good points the reason that LJ is runing well with the O-line, but he's way off base Croyle considering King Carl was pulling the strings concerning starters

Frazod
03-07-2008, 07:24 PM
I want that 4:52 back. Faulk is a moron. Jim Brown couldn't run behind that line. Croyle gets no protection behind that line. Praising Herm and Carl and I've-Fallen-But-I-Can't-Get-Up Law, but throwing Brodie under the bus? Dumb.

Bweb
03-07-2008, 07:33 PM
Faulk says that LJ is not the kind of back that can "carry" a team. Well, we sure gave LJ the contract of a back who should carry a team. I know our O-line is currently crap but their should be some accountability to the guy we are paying the most money to. :shrug:

talastan
03-07-2008, 07:41 PM
Faulk on Brodie: :BS:

Faulk on Herm/Carl: :BS:

Faulk on Law: :BS:

Come on guys can't you spend four and a half minutes of research before you do a crap four and a half minute broadcast?:shake::shake:

Fruit Ninja
03-07-2008, 07:57 PM
I agree with him on we did NO moves to get any olinemen. We need at least 3 new guys and we picked up 0 starters. Brodie stands no freaking chance back there. I think we may end up being worse in 2008 then we were in 2007.

Frazod
03-07-2008, 08:02 PM
I agree with him on we did NO moves to get any olinemen. We need at least 3 new guys and we picked up 0 starters. Brodie stands no freaking chance back there. I think we may end up being worse in 2008 then we were in 2007.

That's true enough. We could have at least TRIED to make a move for one good veteran. ONE. Would ONE be too much to ask?

Perhaps Carl and Herm hate Croyle. I think they're trying to turn him into Shane Falco.

Deberg_1990
03-07-2008, 08:05 PM
That's true enough. We could have at least TRIED to make a move for one good veteran. ONE. Would ONE be too much to ask?



IM guessing probably 4 picks will be O-linemen in the draft.

Frazod
03-07-2008, 08:08 PM
IM guessing probably 4 picks will be O-linemen in the draft.

I know. Again, "veteran" is the key word. Not a bunch of rookies who'll be good in time to visit Brodie's grave.

Fruit Ninja
03-07-2008, 08:10 PM
IM guessing probably 4 picks will be O-linemen in the draft.

4 rookies out there right now are not going to help Brodie whatsoever. Brodie will get hurt by the halfway mark if we go with what we have now starting. Even if we get Jake Long, Brodie is still going to be minced meat back there.

Deberg_1990
03-07-2008, 08:14 PM
I know. Again, "veteran" is the key word. Not a bunch of rookies who'll be good in time to visit Brodie's grave.


Ehh...ive accepted the fact hes going to struggle with or without a good line. I honestly dont think hes the long term answer at QB. At some point, a QB has to make plays on his own and make the players around him better. No excuses.

I think the Chiefs draft a QB again (anywhere from 2-4th rounds) simply because they need someone legit to push Croyle and his injury history is so bad.

Fruit Ninja
03-07-2008, 08:15 PM
I dont think Brodie is the answer either, but at least give him a chance.

BigRock
03-07-2008, 08:29 PM
Brady Croyle. Nice research, Marshall. The guy still thinks getting rid of Trent was a mistake.

xbarretx
03-07-2008, 08:56 PM
Faulk on Brodie: :BS:

Faulk on Herm/Carl: :BS:

Faulk on Law: :BS:

Come on guys can't you spend four and a half minutes of research before you do a crap four and a half minute broadcast?:shake::shake:

yes you can, they just gave it "the old college try" LMAO

BigVE
03-07-2008, 09:07 PM
Brady Croyle. Nice research, Marshall. The guy still thinks getting rid of Trent was a mistake.

Actually the idiot called him Brady Coy-ral.

StcChief
03-07-2008, 09:34 PM
Brady Croyle. Nice research, Marshall. The guy still thinks getting rid of Trent was a mistake.the Ram homer....

Trent coming back to STL

kcchiefsus
03-07-2008, 09:38 PM
Ehh...ive accepted the fact hes going to struggle with or without a good line. I honestly dont think hes the long term answer at QB. At some point, a QB has to make plays on his own and make the players around him better. No excuses.

I think the Chiefs draft a QB again (anywhere from 2-4th rounds) simply because they need someone legit to push Croyle and his injury history is so bad.

If we have any hesitation about Croyle's ability to play we might as well go all out and take Ryan in the first.

brent102fire
03-07-2008, 10:12 PM
I'm sorry, but LJ, Adrian Peterson, LT or any other RB in the NFL would not have stood a chance running behind the Chiefs' O-line this year. Furthermore, no running game is bad for a QB, no matter who is back there: Brady, Manning(s), Favre or Croyle. It all starts up front in the trenches. Everyone knows that :shake:

MadMax
03-07-2008, 11:03 PM
Heh the moron even mentioned Tait who was long gone before LJ came aboard..

MadMax
03-07-2008, 11:08 PM
4 rookies out there right now are not going to help Brodie whatsoever. Brodie will get hurt by the halfway mark if we go with what we have now starting. Even if we get Jake Long, Brodie is still going to be minced meat back there.

We have Huard abd he still gives us the best chance to win now... /joking /puking /slapping Hooties hand off my pecker

MadMax
03-07-2008, 11:13 PM
I want that 4:52 back. Faulk is a moron. Jim Brown couldn't run behind that line. Croyle gets no protection behind that line. Praising Herm and Carl and I've-Fallen-But-I-Can't-Get-Up Law, but throwing Brodie under the bus? Dumb.



Dats it I be fittin to find out who da babby daddy id cause I gotta ja....see what im saayin? cracka motha****in cracka...:)

Rausch
03-08-2008, 11:14 AM
If we have any hesitation about Croyle's ability to play we might as well go all out and take Ryan in the first.

It's starting to look like he's just a place-holder until we get the line built.

"Oh well, he's only a 3rd rounder, and cheap. If he gets ruined over the 2-3 years it takes to build our line, no loss. If he manages to doge lightning the whole time and makes it, better yet!"

Brock
03-08-2008, 11:24 AM
If we have any hesitation about Croyle's ability to play we might as well go all out and take Ryan in the first.

Probably won't get the chance.

beach tribe
03-08-2008, 12:08 PM
If we have any hesitation about Croyle's ability to play we might as well go all out and take Ryan in the first.

Then Croyle develops. Then What?

We sit back and watch Gholston, Dorsey, Ellis, and both of the Longs start, and kick ass from day one.

Then MAYBE if were lucky, someone will give us a low second rounder for Ryan.

Or Croyle busts, then Ryan busts, and we get squat out of the highest pick we've had in 20 yrs.

beach tribe
03-08-2008, 12:13 PM
I'm sure we'll get the chance to draft a QB in the next couple years if croyle doesn't work out. These other players are too valuable to pass up for someone who might be good, to replace someone who might not.
If Croyle sucks ass we'll be picking high the next couple years.
I'm sure there will be another QB of Ryans caliber available.

evolve27
03-08-2008, 12:40 PM
I'm sure we'll get the chance to draft a QB in the next couple years if croyle doesn't work out. These other players are too valuable to pass up for someone who might be good, to replace someone who might not.
If Croyle sucks ass we'll be picking high the next couple years.
I'm sure there will be another QB of Ryans caliber available.

The Falcons may re-sign Joey Harrington as soon as this week.

The Falcons avoided paying Harrington $3.5 million (including a deferred signing bonus) by releasing him this week. While Harrington collapsed late in the year, he's a decent backup and would give the Falcons flexibility at the position and in the draft.

God I hope we don't take Ryan. His chances of falling to us are apparently increasing. Coy-ral needs a chance this year from the get-go and yes we have bigger holes to fill all over. Take a DT/DE, OT, CB, whatever just not QB with a pick this early.

orange
03-08-2008, 01:54 PM
That was actually a great summation of the Chiefs' situation. Nothing he said was remotely controversial - except to those of you who sleep on Brodie Croyle pillowcases.

He mispronounced Brodie's name - once. Big deal. It's not like Croyle has done anything to make anyone remember his name.

A lot of you are harping on the "no one could run behind that line" theme. Yes. But that doesn't disagree with Faulk at all. Faulk clearly states that same message.

P.S. For those of you who don't know, John Tait and Larry Johnson were both Chiefs in 2003.

Mecca
03-08-2008, 02:09 PM
I'm sure we'll get the chance to draft a QB in the next couple years if croyle doesn't work out. These other players are too valuable to pass up for someone who might be good, to replace someone who might not.
If Croyle sucks ass we'll be picking high the next couple years.
I'm sure there will be another QB of Ryans caliber available.

Next years worse for QB's.....

beach tribe
03-08-2008, 02:27 PM
Next years worse for QB's.....

Maybe. When does Tebow come out?

How do you judge QBs before they ever play their final college season? Damn you're good:rolleyes:

penchief
03-08-2008, 04:17 PM
Faulk says that LJ is not the kind of back that can "carry" a team. Well, we sure gave LJ the contract of a back who should carry a team. I know our O-line is currently crap but their should be some accountability to the guy we are paying the most money to. :shrug:

In 2006, LJ carried this team.

orange
03-08-2008, 05:15 PM
In 2005 - behind Willie Roaf - he carried the team. In 2006 he lost about 1 yd/carry off his average and wasn't close to the same back.

And of course, in 2007 without Green and Shields and Richardson, his production went into the dumper.

beach tribe
03-08-2008, 05:18 PM
In 2005 - behind Willie Roaf - he carried the team. In 2006 he lost about 1 yd/carry off his average and wasn't close to the same back.

He was the same back. It was NOT the same line.

OnTheWarpath58
03-08-2008, 05:21 PM
In 2005 - behind Willie Roaf - he carried the team. In 2006 he lost about 1 yd/carry off his average and wasn't close to the same back.

And of course, in 2007 without Green and Shields and Richardson, his production went into the dumper.

Sure, he lost a yard per carry on his average.

But to say that 400+ carries and almost 1800 yards, with DAMON HUARD as the starting QB isn't "carrying the team" is asinine.

orange
03-08-2008, 05:22 PM
Agreed. He's devastating once he hits a hole - but you have to give him a hole, he can't create one like either Barry Sanders (butterfly) or Jim Brown (bee).

That was Faulk's whole point.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a completely unrelated note, if ChiefsPlanet is going to keep logging me off, I'm going to have to get an easier password to type. Can anyone tell me how to prevent that (the logging off)?

milkman
03-08-2008, 05:37 PM
P.S. For those of you who don't know, John Tait and Larry Johnson were both Chiefs in 2003.

As I understand it, Faulk said something to the effect that LJ misses Tait.

LJ had about 20 carries in their only season as teammates, so Faulk's point is clearly mis-informed.

Deberg_1990
03-08-2008, 05:46 PM
Or Croyle busts, then Ryan busts, and we get squat out of the highest pick we've had in 20 yrs.

Well, thats the chance you take. To be great, you have to take chances.

Boom or Bust.

orange
03-08-2008, 05:53 PM
As I understand it, Faulk said something to the effect that LJ misses Tait.

LJ had about 20 carries in their only season as teammates, so Faulk's point is clearly mis-informed.

Faulk mentioned Tait as one of about a half-dozen stars gone from the Chiefs offense since LJ came to explain the crash of the Chiefs offense.

Concentrate on a half-second mention of Tait and ignore the rest.

Then here, we have a so-called Chiefs fan, claiming Tait was "long gone" by the time LJ came, and Faulk's research really doesn't look so bad after all.

Heh the moron even mentioned Tait who was long gone before LJ came aboard..

milkman
03-08-2008, 06:19 PM
Faulk mentioned Tait as one of about a half-dozen stars gone from the Chiefs offense since LJ came to explain the crash of the Chiefs offense.

Concentrate on a half-second mention of Tait and ignore the rest.

Then here, we have a so-called Chiefs fan, claiming Tait was "long gone" by the time LJ came, and Faulk's research really doesn't look so bad after all.

I didn't watch it.

Just going by what I read.

But if he used the words "He misses John Tait", regardless of how little time he spent on Tait, that is mis-informed.

if he only mentions Tait without referencing LJ then my point is moot.