PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Chiefsplanet Mythology: Younger players getting better even though team is losing...


|Zach|
07-25-2008, 05:21 PM
I read this a lot around here, it is the outlook of many posters and a reasonable one.

However, it just seems that even though it is said there isn't anyone who particularly ever ends up seeing it that way when it actually happens.

I guess what I am asking is...for the people that hold this viewpoint...

Would you know it when you saw it?

Seems as though a team losing that much isn't getting younger players that are that much better and if they are I don't see how they aren't getting thrown into the same shit sandwich when folks talk about how this team is losing and is spiraling downwards.

Joie
07-25-2008, 05:34 PM
I think it's just a way of holding out some hope that the team doesn't suck as much as it appears to.

FAX
07-25-2008, 05:38 PM
I think, Mr. |Zach|, the idea behind all this is based primarily on the well-known and oft-repeated Russian apothegm; "Young suck is better than old suck."

FAX

Baby Lee
07-25-2008, 05:41 PM
It really is something hard to suss out, with the machinery being so intricate and interconnected.
Few teams looked worse than the 89-90 Cowboys or the 97-98 Rams.
But there was a frustration factor where they'd hold up strong in one aspect and fall apart in another one week, then hold up strong where the fells apart and fall apart elsewhere the next.
Case in point in 1998, the Rams lost back to back to;
The Falcons [with a weak O and strong D] - 38-35.
The 49ers [with a strong O and weak D] 14-17.

rambleonthruthefog
07-25-2008, 05:48 PM
i just don't feel right saying that teams i genuinely like suck. i usually see the good in the things i like. i don't like em' for no reason, right?

markk
07-25-2008, 05:51 PM
i look at things like wide receivers, it's very common for them not to make an impact until their third year of experience in the league or so. Bowe is unique in that he didn't take much time to adjust to the pro game. Braylon Edwards for example. all the talent in the world and he didn't really break through to elite status until last season.

young players have to get the reps though before they can mature. i don't like seeing guys with 1-2 years left in the tank getting snaps over young guys when the team is 2-3 years away.

like, an optimistic but still reasonable goal is 2008: 7 wins, 2009: 10 wins, 2010: contenders.

so play guys who realistically might be around in 2010... not 35 year old career backup QBs and such

kcchiefsus
07-25-2008, 05:55 PM
You do realize that teams go through what we are going through all the time? The most common example is San Diego. They sucked for quite a while but they found a competent GM who was able to use the young talent they already had as well as adding more young talent. How do you think the Chargers went from 4-12 in 2003 to 12-4 in 2004? It sure as hell wasn't from veteran additions. They improved because of their young talent. I don't see how it is so hard to understand that. Just as a young player gets progressively better through his first few years in the league, a team of young players should progressively get better as they get more experience and finally start to understand the game.

Count Alex's Wins
07-25-2008, 05:58 PM
Well Herm believes you either get better or worse with every practice. So it's not just Chiefsplanet mythology.

dorseybowe
07-25-2008, 06:02 PM
Derrick Johnson on rebuilding:

“It’s a college word,” he told me. “You rebuild in college, you build programs.

“But in the NFL, there’s too much at stake. There’s a sense of urgency. You can develop young guys, but you have to win.

“No matter how young you are, you got veteran guys who want to win. You think Tony Gonzalez wants to hear about rebuilding? You win the way Indianapolis does or Green Bay. You develop as you’re winning.”

markk
07-25-2008, 06:03 PM
San Diego made the jump that year because Brees matured and Gates developed into a total animal among other things. You can't explain why Brees went from a rating in the 60s to a rating over 100 other than development.

Without looking they have had a lot of solid drafts on that team. Not many teams had a run of a few drafts panning out well for them like they did. Of course they had the benefit of some extra picks through there and some high picks.

Deberg_1990
07-25-2008, 06:08 PM
San Diego made the jump that year because Brees matured and Gates developed into a total animal among other things. You can't explain why Brees went from a rating in the 60s to a rating over 100 other than development.



Which is why ive been spouting that everything hinges on Croyles development.

Its ALWAYS about the QB in the NFL.

The Browns are another good example. When Derrick Anderson got good, so did the win total. Amazing how that works?

markk
07-25-2008, 06:17 PM
Which is why ive been spouting that everything hinges on Croyles development.

Its ALWAYS about the QB in the NFL.

The Browns are another good example. When Derrick Anderson got good, so did the win total. Amazing how that works?

think about it, defensive backs can't do much of what they could do to receivers in the 70s and 80s. and so many rules are in place to protect the QB now. QB is more important today than ever in league history.

siberian khatru
07-25-2008, 06:19 PM
Just trust us, Zach. We've never let you down before.

"Bob" Dobbs
07-25-2008, 06:37 PM
"Young suck is better than old suck."

FAX

Well, THAT'S a no-brainer.

|Zach|
07-25-2008, 06:55 PM
Just trust us, Zach. We've never let you down before.

:fart:


:)

RibKing67
07-25-2008, 07:23 PM
I take alot of garbage from the guys I work with because I hold out hope that Brodie will mature into a good QB. I also see alot of the new players, Tank, Turk, Page, Pollar, D.J. and even L.J., getting needed experience and growing into their positions. Now with the rookie additions I am very pleased with our draft and I do believe Flowers, Dorsey and Albert will contribute more than expected this year. I am a Cheifs fan and even when it seems the cards are stacked against us I will be the one to hold out hope and watch the development of the younger players. And to answer your question, yes I do believe I will be able to notice improvement in our young players. When the dont miss blocks, dont over run plays and make tackles I think that is noticeable.

KcMizzou
07-25-2008, 07:34 PM
I believe it's possible. I think young players can get better by, you know... playing.

Sure, I hope the team does well this season, but I'm more concerned about watching how individual players progress.

Hopefully the majority of them will be much better professional players at the end of the season, than they are now. Then next year, I'll start worrying about expectations of a W/L record.

JuicesFlowing
07-25-2008, 08:15 PM
i just don't feel right saying that teams i genuinely like suck. i usually see the good in the things i like. i don't like em' for no reason, right?

I tend to agree.

blueballs
07-25-2008, 08:44 PM
keep running into the same wall is boring

StcChief
07-25-2008, 10:01 PM
for some teams it works.... it just hasn't of late

hopefully that corner is turned with better talent evaluation.....

we will know by end of 2009 mid 2010

Chris Meck
07-26-2008, 01:38 PM
It's a process, and I think most of these comments are right on.

The problem for casual observers is that sometimes it doesn't look very pretty, and thus-'we suck'. Young players will make the mental mistakes that veterans don't, and sometimes that can be ugly.

but I don't think you could argue with any merit that we haven't increased our athletic talent level dramatically. We won't get beat because we're not fast enough, quick enough or strong enough-as did often last year. We might lose some games because we're not smart enough yet.

It DOES hinge on the QB quite a bit, although I will also draw your attention to the offensive line. It's no accident that Derek Anderson suddenly became good. What had been a bad o-line got shored up the previous offseason. So there were a few things that happened there all at the same time.


IF this line we're putting together can play at even an 'average' level, that will be a GREAT improvement and you'll see improved QB play. I'm a Brodie supporter because I think he has the tools and attitude to make it. If we can protect him I think he'll be a good one. If we don't start protecting him quickly, he might get ruined. A lot of the game is psychological, especially at the QB position. But he's a tough kid, he's been through a lot to even get here, and I think he can hold up.

So there, I'm an optimist too.

OnTheWarpath58
07-26-2008, 01:53 PM
It's a process, and I think most of these comments are right on.

The problem for casual observers is that sometimes it doesn't look very pretty, and thus-'we suck'. Young players will make the mental mistakes that veterans don't, and sometimes that can be ugly.

but I don't think you could argue with any merit that we haven't increased our athletic talent level dramatically. We won't get beat because we're not fast enough, quick enough or strong enough-as did often last year. We might lose some games because we're not smart enough yet.

It DOES hinge on the QB quite a bit, although I will also draw your attention to the offensive line. It's no accident that Derek Anderson suddenly became good. What had been a bad o-line got shored up the previous offseason. So there were a few things that happened there all at the same time.


IF this line we're putting together can play at even an 'average' level, that will be a GREAT improvement and you'll see improved QB play. I'm a Brodie supporter because I think he has the tools and attitude to make it. If we can protect him I think he'll be a good one. If we don't start protecting him quickly, he might get ruined. A lot of the game is psychological, especially at the QB position. But he's a tough kid, he's been through a lot to even get here, and I think he can hold up.

So there, I'm an optimist too.

Great point, Chris.

And the quickest way for a young player to get smarter is to get significant playing time. Something that rarely happened in past years. The older, overpriced veteran was the staple of this franchise.

Not anymore, and I for one like it, and am willing to wait for positive results.

blueballs
07-26-2008, 02:06 PM
When you have a young team and a starter gets injured
you have to send in a rookie with no game experience
does it throw off the young starters -i can see experienced back ups as +s

blueballs
07-26-2008, 02:07 PM
your second stringers could be no better than trash

Bearcat
07-26-2008, 02:24 PM
Younger players getting better even though team is losing...

Would you know it when you saw it?



As far as watching a player develop, I think it's more of a realization than watching progress every week. Watching the potential is exciting... watching the speed or power, knowing the technique and big plays will come in time. But I think the development comes over the course of seasons, when you realize midseason that you aren't the 4-12 team you were the year before, and then the next season you realize you aren't the 8-8 team from the year before. There's so much parity in the league and so much dependence on teamwork, it's hard to nail it down to a game or even a month and say that you can see the players getting better. To do that I'd think you would either have to really focus on one or two players on every play or be Ron Jaworski.