PDA

View Full Version : How Many Yards Will Deshaun Foster Rush for Sunday


cmh6476
09-17-2004, 01:02 PM
against our defense...



poll forthcoming

Demonpenz
09-17-2004, 01:03 PM
Steven davis is out

cmh6476
09-17-2004, 01:06 PM
Steven davis is out
yeah, so? :shrug:

Demonpenz
09-17-2004, 01:08 PM
Foster should see more carries with davis being out

ChiTown
09-17-2004, 01:09 PM
Foster should see more carries with davis being out

True, I went with 25 for 120.

cmh6476
09-17-2004, 01:10 PM
True, I went with 25 for 120.
I'm a blind homer PBJ

Demonpenz
09-17-2004, 01:11 PM
what planes are flying overhead at arrowhead, i want to see an f-16 upside down going mach 1

Rick
09-17-2004, 01:15 PM
It really hasn't mattered who runs the football against us the last few years. Defensive breakdowns let him go two long runs. Same 'ole, same 'ole.

cmh6476
09-17-2004, 01:15 PM
there is a problem with this poll. Whjat if you believe he will rush for exactly 50, 100, 150, 200, or 250 yards? :shrug:

beer bacon
09-17-2004, 01:25 PM
20 carries for 98 yards. He rushes 15 times in the first half, but since the Panther's are down by 14 at the half so he only gets five carries in the second half.

Oh yeah. Also, Foster will have a big run in the first quarter that will throw us all into dismay, but Gunther will explode and will actually fire up our D. After that Foster will average 3.0 ypc or less for the rest of the game. yes I am a :homer:

ptlyon
09-17-2004, 01:26 PM
Cool. I was waiting for this.

165

Demonpenz
09-17-2004, 01:27 PM
steve smith is out too

Garcia Bronco
09-17-2004, 01:29 PM
I think..it's under 100 yards still...their o-line is about brand new.

Saulbadguy
09-17-2004, 02:43 PM
47 yards in under 20 carries. We will score 14+ on them in a heartbeat, so they will have to throw the ball more often.

go bowe
09-17-2004, 02:49 PM
I think..it's under 100 yards still...their o-line is about brand new.yeah, the o-line problems should still limit their success, but our d is not as good as the green bay defense...

so foster should get a little more than davis did (but still under 100 yds)...

warrior
09-17-2004, 02:49 PM
under 100 yards panthers will be behind and have to play catch up. panthers 16 chiefs 34

Mr. Laz
09-17-2004, 02:51 PM
i would of rather seen Stephan davis



Deshaun foster "can be" clinton porter-esque



if we miss a key tackle, he's gone

Chief Fanatic
09-17-2004, 03:01 PM
Foster scares me more than Davis, He can catch bettter, cut better and is faster, so I'm going with 25 carries for 115 yards

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 03:31 PM
You guys are looking at small samples of Foster - 4 carries here, 4 carries there -- when he's backing up Davis AFTER Davis has done the dirty work of softening up the defense.

He's started only 2 games in his career and carried the ball more than 10 times only 5 times.

In those 2 games he started, he had 43 carries for 132 yards (3.1ypc), no TD's and 1 fumble.

In the 5 games where he's carried the ball more than 10 times, he has 86 carries for 306 yards (3.6ypc), no TD's and 2 fumbles.

Rausch
09-17-2004, 03:33 PM
Foster scares me more than Davis, He can catch bettter, cut better and is faster, so I'm going with 25 carries for 115 yards

I drafted him in my fantasy league thinking Stephen Davis is the new Fred Taylor.

He is...

Foster scares me for all the reasons Fanatic listed above. A huge fantasy day is some consolation though... STFU

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 03:34 PM
Foster's career long rush is TWENTY ONE yards.

Demonpenz
09-17-2004, 03:37 PM
Foster can't even come back to life

shakesthecat
09-17-2004, 03:43 PM
I'd have rather seen Davis too.
Sure Foster has break away speed but he's running into, what better be, a buzz saw. I'd like to think Gunther and the boys were in particularly pissed off mood this week in practice.

The past couple years, KC seems to be able to play just enough D at home to win. Sometimes they even look good.

I've seen worse Chief defenses shut down better backs at home.
If GR could occasionally put lipstick on the pig, I'm sure Gun can pull it off against a beat down Carolina team.

Demonpenz
09-17-2004, 03:46 PM
[QUOTE=shakesthecat]I'd have rather seen Davis too.
Sure Foster has break away speed but he's running into, what better be, a buzz saw. I'd like to think Gunther and the boys were in particularly pissed off mood this week in practice.

Yeah just like this offseason after Indy they vowed NEVER AGAIN! They were pissed off all offseason and it served them wonders.

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 03:47 PM
I'd have rather seen Davis too.
Sure Foster has break away speed but he's running into, what better be, a buzz saw. I'd like to think Gunther and the boys were in particularly pissed off mood this week in practice.

The past couple years, KC seems to be able to play just enough D at home to win. Sometimes they even look good.

I've seen worse Chief defenses shut down better backs at home.
If GR could occasionally put lipstick on the pig, I'm sure Gun can pull it off against a beat down Carolina team.

21 yards.

Career long.

Deberg_1990
09-17-2004, 03:50 PM
Againt our D?? hahah..im sure he wil have a career day! Ill guess 168 yards rushing with 2 TD's. He will have a long run of about 64 yards.

shakesthecat
09-17-2004, 03:52 PM
Yeah just like this offseason after Indy they vowed NEVER AGAIN! They were pissed off all offseason and it served them wonders.

Were they at HOME last week?

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 03:59 PM
Againt our D?? hahah..im sure he wil have a career day! Ill guess 168 yards rushing with 2 TD's. He will have a long run of about 64 yards.

Against our D?

He played Indy, Houston (who was WORSE than us), Atlanta, and Detroit, all very bad run defenses.

His longest rush against them was 21 yards.

shakesthecat
09-17-2004, 04:01 PM
21 yards.

Career long.

I realize he's had leg/knee problems since, but he sure had speed when he was at UCLA.

I'm thinking Foster runs for around 75 yards.
KC can't completely shut down anyone, but like Warrior said, I think KC jumps ahead early.

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 04:03 PM
I realize he's had leg/knee problems since, but he sure had speed when he was at UCLA.

I'm thinking Foster runs for around 75 yards.
KC can't completely shut down anyone, but like Warrior said, I think KC jumps ahead early.

I see him rushing 22 times for about 85 yards.

Deberg_1990
09-17-2004, 04:13 PM
I see him rushing 22 times for about 85 yards.


I guarantee you he will have a "Career day" Our D sucks, everybody knows it and they will run all day long on it.

ExtremeChief
09-17-2004, 04:16 PM
If GR could occasionally put lipstick on the pig...

That's MOHillbilly's department...

the Talking Can
09-17-2004, 04:17 PM
i would of rather seen Stephan davis



Deshaun foster "can be" clinton porter-esque



if we miss a key tackle, he's gone

I agree, Davis was a little broken down....Brian Shay could run for 100 yards against our pathetic DL...

KC Dan
09-17-2004, 04:19 PM
11 carries for 38 yds. Carolina abandons the run because they find themselves down 28-6 in the third qtr.

Deberg_1990
09-17-2004, 04:38 PM
11 carries for 38 yds. Carolina abandons the run because they find themselves down 28-6 in the third qtr.

Thats the only hope with this D....pray we jump on teams early and kick them why we are down. Its the only way this team can win...If we get in a tight game like last week...we are done.

Bowser
09-17-2004, 04:42 PM
Thats the only hope with this D....pray we jump on teams early and kick them why we are down. Its the only way this team can win...If we get in a tight game like last week...we are done.

C'mon, dude! When was the last time we went to Denver and beat their ass there? Our D is going to be fine. They won't be world beaters, but they will be more than servicable.

I'll go with 24 carries for 91 yards, with a run of 40+ thrown in there somewhere.

Mr. Laz
09-17-2004, 04:44 PM
21 yards.

Career long.

Kawika Mitchell = Ray Lewis

Deshaun Foster = Donnell Bennett




check and check .... :thumb:

Deberg_1990
09-17-2004, 04:44 PM
C'mon, dude! When was the last time we went to Denver and beat their ass there? Our D is going to be fine. They won't be world beaters, but they will be more than servicable.

I'll go with 24 carries for 91 yards, with a run of 40+ thrown in there somewhere.

Ive tried all week to remain positive, hell, ive tried for 3 years to do that.....but i see no hope for this D.....two words: NO PLAYMAKERS

Bowser
09-17-2004, 04:48 PM
Ive tried all week to remain positive, hell, ive tried for 3 years to do that.....but i see no hope for this D.....two words: NO PLAYMAKERS

Oh, ye of little faith. :shake:

I see you attend the Church of Vlad.

Deberg_1990
09-17-2004, 04:53 PM
I see you attend the Church of Vlad.

Im coming over to his side more and more everyday....sad to say...

ENDelt260
09-17-2004, 05:01 PM
Jeez, Deberg... life must suck for you. The Chiefs suck, the Royals suck, and neither front office wants to make a winner. It's completely hopeless. Perhaps you should resign yourself to simply being a golf fan.

Deberg_1990
09-17-2004, 05:04 PM
Jeez, Deberg... life must suck for you. The Chiefs suck, the Royals suck, and neither front office wants to make a winner. It's completely hopeless. Perhaps you should resign yourself to simply being a golf fan.


Oh god...id shoot myself! I hate golf....its like right above bowling on the sports scale...LOL

shakesthecat
09-17-2004, 05:09 PM
Im coming over to his side more and more everyday....sad to say...

6-10, 8-8, 13-3.

Yep, this is clearly a franchise in decline.

KcMizzou
09-17-2004, 05:09 PM
6-10, 8-8, 13-3.

Yep, this is clearly a franchise in decline. ROFL Clearly.

Deberg_1990
09-17-2004, 05:18 PM
6-10, 8-8, 13-3.

Yep, this is clearly a franchise in decline.

Not yet...but you know whats gonna happen...we will go anywhere from 10-6 to 12-4. We will make the playoffs based on the strength of our offense....But once we get into the playoffs and have to face a real team we will choke once again......i can see another letdown coming.

Calcountry
09-17-2004, 05:35 PM
Isn't KC in the "show me" state? I want our Defense to "show me". Otherwise I don't believe.

Mojo Rising
09-17-2004, 05:37 PM
I don't doubt Foster's talent. His line might hold him back though. I think Carolina's D is on par with our O and with injuries their O is equal to our D so I see a close game...high scoring though. I too drafted him in the 12th round expecting a Davis injury. Not this early in the season though. He will sit on my bench behind Dom Davis and LT...primarily because of their O line (3 new starters.)

go bowe
09-17-2004, 05:56 PM
That's MOHillbilly's department...ouch!

but now that i think of it, you probably have a good point... ROFL ROFL ROFL

go bowe
09-17-2004, 06:00 PM
Jeez, Deberg... life must suck for you. The Chiefs suck, the Royals suck, and neither front office wants to make a winner. It's completely hopeless. Perhaps you should resign yourself to simply being a golf fan.fore!!

Mr. Laz
09-17-2004, 06:07 PM
He will sit on my bench behind Dom Davis and LT...primarily because of their O line (3 new starters.)

so which is weaker .. .their O line or our D line?

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 07:01 PM
Kawika Mitchell = Ray Lewis

Deshaun Foster = Donnell Bennett




check and check .... :thumb:

That doesn't even make any sense.

Let's stick to the facts.

The guy averages 3.3ypc when he starts and has a career long run of 21 yards.

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 07:07 PM
I can't believe people are more worried about a guy who's carried the ball 20 times in a game twice in his career than they are about a guy who's finished in the top 5 in rushing in the NFC almost every season the last 6 seasons or so.

That's almost like thinking that we don't need McCardell because Richard Smith is ready to be a #1 WR.

That one's for you, Laz. ;)

Mr. Laz
09-17-2004, 07:14 PM
I can't believe people are more worried about a guy who's carried the ball 20 times in a game twice in his career than they are about a guy who's finished in the top 5 in rushing in the NFC almost every season the last 6 seasons or so.

That's almost like thinking that we don't need McCardell because Richard Smith is ready to be a #1 WR.

That one's for you, Laz. ;)

which one ... missed this one

Mr. Laz
09-17-2004, 07:27 PM
That doesn't even make any sense.

Let's stick to the facts.

The guy averages 3.3ypc when he starts and has a career long run of 21 yards.

but his career consists of 118 careers... following a big knee injury.



Foster is a slasher, who has more breakaway speed than Davis



pick your poison


our defense has a bad habit of giving up the big play. i would prefer a running back who is less likely to take the big play for 80 yards ... instead of taking it for 15 yrds.


imo Davis is a guy designed for 5-15 yrd runs ... foster has more homerun capability.


his stats are an incomplete sampling due to injury and a short career.

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 07:33 PM
which one ... missed this one

You're a guy that believes that we need McCardell because Smith is unproven, right?

It was a good-natured jab...

tk13
09-17-2004, 07:37 PM
I can't believe people are more worried about a guy who's carried the ball 20 times in a game twice in his career than they are about a guy who's finished in the top 5 in rushing in the NFC almost every season the last 6 seasons or so.

That's almost like thinking that we don't need McCardell because Richard Smith is ready to be a #1 WR.

That one's for you, Laz. ;)
Quentin Griffin had carried the ball 20 times in a game twice in his career and had a career YPC average of 3.7 before last week...

I think Foster's a better back than Griffin, nothing to do with stats, just having watched them play. I like Foster's size/speed combo. He better not have more yards than Griffin though, we're playing at home and they have an O-line that hasn't worked together much having to deal with the noise at Arrowhead.

Also... don't forget Foster played very well in the playoffs last year. He rushed 21 times-95 yards against the Rams, 14 rushes, 60 yds against the Eagles, and 3 carries, 43 yds against the Pats in the Super Bowl.

Mr. Laz
09-17-2004, 07:43 PM
You're a guy that believes that we need McCardell because Smith is unproven, right?

It was a good-natured jab...

oh ...


actually i'm undecided/indifferent on the McCardell issue


would he be an upgrade? imo he would, but at what cost?


first, we would have to make a trade for him ... enter carl peterson and his chitty negotiation skills. more often than not, we get screwed.

we would prolly pay a uber premium in trade for McCardell

second, we would prolly have to give McCardell a new contract ... enter Carl again ... how nasty would that be?

how much you want to pay for a 32 year old receiver????


IMO we made the decision to not do anything in the offseason so we are probably stuck with the guys we got.


i have a higher opinion of Johnny morton that most around here though too.... so :shrug:

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 07:46 PM
but his career consists of 118 careers... following a big knee injury.

:hmmm:

Not enough carries to make an adequate assessment? That's good enough to explain away Foster's mediocre numbers? Are you sure that's not an excuse?

Foster's rookie season:
zero carries, zero yards, zero rushing TD's, active for ZERO games
Foster's career:
116 carries, 441 yards, zero TD's, 3.8 ypc

The rookie season of the biggest bust in recent Chiefs memory:
20 carries, 85 yards, 1 TD, 4.3 ypc

I sense a double standard here.

Foster is a slasher, who has more breakaway speed than Davis

pick your poison

our defense has a bad habit of giving up the big play. i would prefer a running back who is less likely to take the big play for 80 yards ... instead of taking it for 15 yrds.

imo Davis is a guy designed for 5-15 yrd runs ... foster has more homerun capability.

I'm sorry but I cannot agree less. Davis has 35 rushes for 20 or more yards, or 2% of his career carries. His career long is 76 yards. Foster has one run of longer than 20 yards in 116 carries, or .9%, and that run was a mere 21 yards. Davis has a 20+ run once in every 49 carries. Foster has a 20+ run once in every 116 carries.

Foster's "homerun capability" up to this point, is non-existent, and as I said before, he's played several bad run defenses, including Indy and Houston, who was WORSE than us last season.


his stats are an incomplete sampling due to injury and a short career.

There's that double-standard again.

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 07:51 PM
Quentin Griffin had carried the ball 20 times in a game twice in his career and had a career YPC average of 3.7 before last week...

I think Foster's a better back than Griffin, nothing to do with stats, just having watched them play. I like Foster's size/speed combo. He better not have more yards than Griffin though, we're playing at home and they have an O-line that hasn't worked together much having to deal with the noise at Arrowhead.

Also... don't forget Foster played very well in the playoffs last year. He rushed 21 times-95 yards against the Rams, 14 rushes, 60 yds against the Eagles, and 3 carries, 43 yds against the Pats in the Super Bowl.

Griffin started 2 games last year. In one of those starts he rushed for 136 yards and a 4.9 average. He had proven on AT LEAST one occasion that he could actually perform in a situation where he was the #1 starter.

Foster hasn't. I agree, he looks very good on the field. But he's not facing fresh defenses. He's facing guys that have already been subject to Stephen Davis.

Bowser
09-17-2004, 07:52 PM
Griffin started 2 games last year. In one of those starts he rushed for 136 yards and a 4.9 average. He had proven on AT LEAST one occasion that he could actually perform in a situation where he was the #1 starter.

Foster hasn't. I agree, he looks very good on the field. But he's not facing fresh defenses. He's facing guys that have already been subject to Stephen Davis.

With an almost new O-Line. Definitely not the one Stephen Davis ran behind for 1400+ last year.

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 07:54 PM
Also, I want to clarify, just in case anybody is misunderstanding.

I'm NOT saying I'm not worried about Foster. I've seen him play, I think he's got the tools.

I AM saying that I think it's CRAZY to be more worried about him than it is to be worried about a 2-time NFC rushing champ...

Mr. Laz
09-17-2004, 08:00 PM
There's that double-standard again.

it would be a double standard if i was doing what i think your implying


i ASSume your talking about a larry johnson/Foster comparison?



i think you have me confuse with someone else again (apparently like the McCardell deal)


my complaint about Johnson is AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN primarily a complaint about picking a RB, when we didn't need a running back.


we should of pick a defensive player


i didn't say Larry johnson was a bust ... i have said that we may have the best group of running backs in the league. I told you that before.


i dont see a double standard here... i see you getting me confused with someone else's comments about larry johnson.

i think lots of people do that same around here

lazarus = negative ... so revisionists history sooner or later everybody remembers that it was me that said whatever negative comment was made.

i've made no decision about larry johnson's talent ... but i have made a decision that the chiefs picking larry johnson was a bad fuggin pick.


being redundant here to try and get my point across... and see if someone can actually remember it.


larry johnson = possible good RB

chiefs using 1st RD pick on a RB in the 2003 draft = crappy


any questions??

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 08:02 PM
it would be a double standard if i was doing what i think your implying


i ASSume your talking about a larry johnson/Foster comparison?



i think you have me confuse with someone else again (apparently like the McCardell deal)


my complaint about Johnson is AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN primarily a complaint about picking a RB, when we didn't need a running back.


we should of pick a defensive player


i didn't say Larry johnson was a bust ... i have said that we may have the best group of running backs in the league. I told you that before.


i dont see a double standard here... i see you getting me confused with someone else's comments about larry johnson.

i think lots of people do that same around here

lazarus = negative ... so revisionists history sooner or later everybody remembers that it was me that said whatever negative comment was made.

i've made no decision about larry johnson's talent ... but i have made a decision that the chiefs picking larry johnson was a bad fuggin pick.


being redundant here to try and get my point across... and see if someone can actually remember it.


larry johnson = possible good RB

chiefs using 1st RD pick on a RB in the 2003 draft = crappy


any questions??

Nope, my bad. I must have confused you with someone else.

alanm
09-17-2004, 08:09 PM
Not yet...but you know whats gonna happen...we will go anywhere from 10-6 to 12-4. We will make the playoffs based on the strength of our offense....But once we get into the playoffs and have to face a real team we will choke once again......i can see another letdown coming.That's it. Turn in your rose colored glasses and mail me all your Chiefs gear. I'll PM my address. Just make sure you wash your shit before you box it up.ROFL

patteeu
09-17-2004, 08:34 PM
Foster's career long rush is TWENTY ONE yards.

In that case, all signs point toward a career afternoon for Foster this Sunday.

*edit* I see that you've covered this territory already. Nevemind. */edit*

Count Zarth
09-17-2004, 11:16 PM
Htismaque is right, fellas.

Throw in the fact that the Panthers have no one to stretch the field, unless you count Keary Colbert, and Our Dbs will be playing closer to the line as well.

I'm going to be pissed if Foster goes for over 120 on us.

KcMizzou
09-17-2004, 11:17 PM
I'm going to be pissed if Foster goes for over 120 on us. He won't break 80.

David.
09-17-2004, 11:20 PM
He could run for 400 for all I care as long as we win.

htismaqe
09-18-2004, 06:41 AM
Htismaque is right, fellas.

Throw in the fact that the Panthers have no one to stretch the field, unless you count Keary Colbert, and Our Dbs will be playing closer to the line as well.

I'm going to be pissed if Foster goes for over 120 on us.

Please don't agree with me. Thanks.

the Talking Can
09-18-2004, 06:48 AM
not sure what stats have to do with it....our D usually allows people to have career days.....that's why our defense sucks

patteeu
09-18-2004, 06:52 AM
Please don't agree with me. Thanks.

ROFL

Gaz
09-18-2004, 06:55 AM
Between 50 & 100 yards; somewhere at the top of that range.

Our Defense is still raw. Add to that the loss of Holliday [not a HUGE loss, IMO] and Wesley [thatís a biggun] and the addition of Mitchell [along with some dreadful rookie mistakes], and you can see why I do not expect huge improvements in our D Sunday.

xoxo~
Gaz
Trying to be patient.

the Talking Can
09-18-2004, 06:59 AM
I think we need to take baby steps....I'm less concerned with rushing yards than points...let's hold someone to 21 points, I'd consider that a huge victory (even against a wounded offense)

I want this D to show some spine and shut people down in the red zone....field goals instead of TDs, good coverage on 3rd etc....we need to see some more (well, any) 3-and-outs

Count Zarth
09-18-2004, 07:08 AM
Please don't agree with me. Thanks.

ROFL Heaven forbid...

Bowser
09-18-2004, 08:55 AM
Between 50 & 100 yards; somewhere at the top of that range.

Our Defense is still raw. Add to that the loss of Holliday [not a HUGE loss, IMO] and Wesley [thatís a biggun] and the addition of Mitchell [along with some dreadful rookie mistakes], and you can see why I do not expect huge improvements in our D Sunday.

xoxo~
Gaz
Trying to be patient.


Browning may be an improvement over Holliday. Holliday looked like he was sleep walking against the Donkeys, with the exception of his sack. But he wasn't even blocked on that play.

htismaqe
09-18-2004, 10:41 AM
Browning may be an improvement over Holliday. Holliday looked like he was sleep walking against the Donkeys, with the exception of his sack. But he wasn't even blocked on that play.

I really want to see Browning on the outside with Siavii starting next to Sims.

The future is NOW!

Gaz
09-18-2004, 10:44 AM
I really want to see Browning on the outside with Siavii starting next to Sims...

Me, too.

xoxo~
Gaz
Thinks a new scheme is a good place to launch the rookies.

Bowser
09-18-2004, 10:52 AM
I really want to see Browning on the outside with Siavii starting next to Sims.

The future is NOW!

I have zero problem with that.

Question is, what would become of Holliday? Or does any body care?

Gaz
09-18-2004, 10:56 AM
Holliday becomes a backup.

xoxo~
Gaz
Can live with this.

Mr. Laz
09-18-2004, 11:24 AM
I really want to see Browning on the outside with Siavii starting next to Sims.

The future is NOW!

browning should be a LDE permanently ... but i'll settle for RDE as long as he's on the outside. Browning on 1st and 2nd ... Allen on 3rd down.



i want major beef at Defensive Tackle



Sims and ??? (resign Downing?)

Savaii and dalton

Straight, No Chaser
09-18-2004, 11:29 AM
I have zero problem with that.

Question is, what would become of Holliday? Or does any body care?


He'll be tending to his groin.

So far this season's poison on defense: Gunther's aggressive style= peaks and valleys. I don't know much about Foster but I say he gets close to a 100. The Panthers will reconstitute their strengths with the Shanarat game plan (WTFN)?



---->

htismaqe
09-18-2004, 12:06 PM
browning should be a LDE permanently ... but i'll settle for RDE as long as he's on the outside. Browning on 1st and 2nd ... Allen on 3rd down.



i want major beef at Defensive Tackle



Sims and ??? (resign Downing?)

Savaii and dalton

I want Downing back, personally. That would allow us to put Browning outside full-time.

go bowe
09-18-2004, 01:10 PM
it would be a double standard if i was doing what i think your implying


i ASSume your talking about a larry johnson/Foster comparison?



i think you have me confuse with someone else again (apparently like the McCardell deal)


my complaint about Johnson is AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN primarily a complaint about picking a RB, when we didn't need a running back.


we should of pick a defensive player


i didn't say Larry johnson was a bust ... i have said that we may have the best group of running backs in the league. I told you that before.


i dont see a double standard here... i see you getting me confused with someone else's comments about larry johnson.

i think lots of people do that same around here

lazarus = negative ... so revisionists history sooner or later everybody remembers that it was me that said whatever negative comment was made.

i've made no decision about larry johnson's talent ... but i have made a decision that the chiefs picking larry johnson was a bad fuggin pick.


being redundant here to try and get my point across... and see if someone can actually remember it.


larry johnson = possible good RB

chiefs using 1st RD pick on a RB in the 2003 draft = crappy


any questions??eh, what's that sonny? :shrug:

go bowe
09-18-2004, 01:13 PM
I really want to see Browning on the outside with Siavii starting next to Sims.

The future is NOW!junior is one of my favorite players, but i still worry that he's not ready for extended playing time...

he's still pretty raw...

go bowe
09-18-2004, 01:18 PM
I want Downing back, personally. That would allow us to put Browning outside full-time.yeah, i was really surprised that they let downing go...

he apparently had a good tc and preseason...

Gaz
09-18-2004, 01:28 PM
...lazarus = negative ...

The rest of the post was just sound and fury.

xoxo~
Gaz
Saved the important bit.

Chiefs Pantalones
09-18-2004, 02:29 PM
If we lose this game, we aren't where we need to be and should be concerned. This team is supposed to be a prime Super Bowl contender and we shouldn't be struggling, especially on defense. We've had 3 years to build, time to start doing something early and often.



Sincerely,

Capn' Obvious

Count Zarth
09-18-2004, 04:41 PM
If we lose this game, we aren't where we need to be and should be concerned. This team is supposed to be a prime Super Bowl contender and we shouldn't be struggling, especially on defense. We've had 3 years to build, time to start doing something early and often.



Sincerely,

Capn' Obvious

I just like to watch the Chiefs. :shrug:

Mr. Laz
09-18-2004, 04:50 PM
Signifying?
-----------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by lazarus
...lazarus = negative ...
-----------------------------------------------------

The rest of the post was just sound and fury.

xoxo~
Gaz
Saved the important bit.

still seeing what you want to see and just ignoring the rest...





thanks for (re)proving my point

Bowser
09-18-2004, 05:11 PM
What's this? A Laz/Gaz pissing contest?

Break out the Tequilla Rose!!!

Logical
09-18-2004, 05:35 PM
I'd have rather seen Davis too.
Sure Foster has break away speed but he's running into, what better be, a buzz saw. I'd like to think Gunther and the boys were in particularly pissed off mood this week in practice.
....ROFLROFLROFLHow many times have we heard this sort of statement. Denver was running into a buzz saw because of the game where Portis kicked our azz and displayed the belt to prove it. Yeah man, Gunther and the boys really kicked em.ROFL

patteeu
09-18-2004, 06:22 PM
I really want to see Browning on the outside with Siavii starting next to Sims.

The future is NOW!

Siavii might have a career game Sunday too, although after getting a sack last week maybe I'm being too optimistic here. ;)

the Talking Can
09-19-2004, 01:48 PM
Fostor now has the longest run in Panthers franchise history.

Anyone who thought he wouldn't run wild against us was crazy.

There isn't a RB in the league that couldn't run for 100 yards againsat us. Not one.

Ari Chi3fs
09-19-2004, 01:54 PM
i figured at least 175... looks like I wasnt too far off.

Demonpenz
09-19-2004, 04:27 PM
I had him down for 150

NaptownChief
09-19-2004, 04:46 PM
I was one of the 5 that nailed it with the 150-200 vote. That was one of the easier questions to ace.

A lot like who is smarter, Carl Peterson or a bag of hammers? Bag of hammers in a blowout.

htismaqe
09-19-2004, 08:03 PM
Fostor now has the longest run in Panthers franchise history.

Anyone who thought he wouldn't run wild against us was crazy.

There isn't a RB in the league that couldn't run for 100 yards againsat us. Not one.

I had him down for 100-150. I was hoping for more like 85. I expected him to get 5 or so ypc, and a few 10-15 yarders thrown in there. And that's exactly what the defense held him too, until the long run. They were winded. You just can't expect these guys to be on the field that long.

I can't explain enough how HORRIBLE our offense was today.

the Talking Can
09-19-2004, 08:24 PM
I had him down for 100-150. I was hoping for more like 85. I expected him to get 5 or so ypc, and a few 10-15 yarders thrown in there. And that's exactly what the defense held him too, until the long run. They were winded. You just can't expect these guys to be on the field that long.

I can't explain enough how HORRIBLE our offense was today.

so thow out the 70 yard run and criticise the offense...that makes sense

Fostor did what every back does to our sorry defense....set records....other defenses play for 4 quarters, why can't ours?

I'm tired of all the excuses we make for this defense.

ptlyon
09-20-2004, 06:26 AM
Cool. I was waiting for this.

165

I only missed by 9. Do I win?

patteeu
09-20-2004, 07:56 AM
so thow out the 70 yard run and criticise the offense...that makes sense

Fostor did what every back does to our sorry defense....set records....other defenses play for 4 quarters, why can't ours?

I'm tired of all the excuses we make for this defense.

I agree with htismaqe on this. Most of the Chiefs' salary cap eggs are in their offensive basket. They should be able to count on that offense to protect the defense a little bit. Foster didn't do anything in the first half. The defense made stops and took the ball away. The offense did little in the first half and didn't return to the field in the second half. They didn't score to give the defense margin for error. They didn't possess the ball to give the defense a breather. And they didn't win the field position battle to give the defense a long field to defend.

The defense certainly has problems, but they were expected. Those problems wouldn't be deal breakers if the offense were doing what it was expected to do.