ChiefsPlanet - Chiefs Do You Suffer from TFS? True Fan Syndrome? If So, We Can Help

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

Do You Suffer from TFS? True Fan Syndrome? If So, We Can Help (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=198633)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 5311946)

Also, FTR, there's not a scintilla of truth in 90% of those in the topic header

Do you lie awake at nights dreaming of 8-8, or 9-7? - No, next

Do you judge a season as a success by a Wild Card birth? - No, next

Do you believe that defenses and running games are more important than franchise QBs? - Yes overall, franchise QBs without a defense or running game are failed franchise QBs, stout defenses and running games have infinately more options [a QB who grows into a franchise role, a FA QB who puts them over the top, the solid mistake free but not otustanding QB, etc]

Do you hate wide receivers? - No, unless you turn into a must have WR franchise like the Vikes in the 90s and the Raiders and Lions of late

Do you love coaches with a complete inability to spot talent at the running back position? - No, next

Do you think that 3-13 is better for the long term future of the franchise than 2-14? - I think in each case it's more important that the team grow, if they're strong enough to shrug off a loss and have it harden them against losing in the future great, if losing busts their confidence, not so good

Do you think the 2002 Bucs and 2000 Ravens are model NFL teams to aspire to? - one should never model onself after SB champions, particularly ones that to perform at a high level before and after the SB

Do you find playoff records to be irrelevant? - No, next

Do you believe that guards and right tackles should be taken with top five picks? - I'm not even replying to this

Do you believe that a quarterback is best served as a game manager?

Do you believe that every 3rd Down play should either be a screen or a draw?

Do you believe kicker is the most important position on the offense? - No, next

Do you believe that all of the best prospects reside in the Big XII? - No, next

Do you believe in trading down in any situation during the draft?

Do you believe that a team is better served picking 20 rather than 5 because they don't have to pay the player as much? - No, next

Do you believe that the only way to be a winning team is to throw money at the most expensive Free Agents every year, regardless of need? - No, next

Do you judge QBOTF by their box scores? - No, next

Do you think that risk is scary, and therefore, wish to draft last in every round to avoid the perception of failure? - No, next

Do you think that Marty and Bill Cowher are the only two coaches left on the planet? - No, next

Do you think that Gunther was once a great coordinator?

Do you think that reaction is safer than action? - Hell No, next

Do you think every other team that actually drafted a QBOTF just 'got lucky' and that it could never happen to us? - I think those who drafted a QBOTF because they recognized greatness were the ones who panned out, and those who drafted a QBOTF because that's what they had to do to get better usually ended up regretting it.
In return, do you think the braintrust in Indy would've [or should've, based on their assessment at the time] drafted Leaf if they hadn't been in position to get Manning?

Is your name [alias of claythan and hootie]? - No, next

Do you prefer tailgating to Championships? - No, next

Do you fear the unknown? - No, next

Do you believe that 'being close in the 4th quarter' is the objective of an offense? - No, being close in the 4th is the concern of the defense, if necessary

Do you believe that the run sets up the pass? - both can set the other, though the run is the more reliable way to set things up

Do you believe that Stafford "has done nothing worth mentioning" in college? - No, next

Do you think QBs don't need to know how to play from under the center, and that learning 5 and 7 step drops is irrelevant because once Thigpen completed a 7 yard pass to a hall of fame tight end in quadruple coverage? - that's just stupid

So, despite the fact that Marty is your coaching infatuation, you find years with wild card births to be failures, you overlook the fact that he has no ability to spot RB talent, that playoff success is relevant.

That's hilariously ironic.

I also enjoy the fact that none of the teams who drafted QBs because they needed them worked out. Hate to point this out to you, but that's precisely why the Petyon and Eli Mannings and Elways of the world were drafted by those teams, and precisely why teams like the Giants gave up two firsts, a third, and a fifth for Eli.

I'd also like to point out that the 2002 Bucs and 2000 Ravens have been to exactly 0 Super Bowls since their victories, 0 Conference Championships since their victories, the Bucs have had losing seasons in 3/6 years despite fielding a great defense near that entire time.

Tampa's record in the playoffs since 2002: 0-2
Baltimore's record in the playoffs since 2000: 1-2

Awesome franchises to model oneself after.

Sorry, I go for the Colts and Pats, or the 9ers and Cowboys of yesteryear...the teams that you know, had threats at the quarterback position.

Funny how once the 9ers lost Young and the Cowboys lost Aikman that neither team has done anything of note since, eh?

I'd also like to know why people claim they don't consider Wild Card berths a success yet they clamor for the 1990's.

I must admit that I'm confused about the debate now. Back when the debate began, it was "do you want to lose as many games as possible to get a higher draft pick?" and "do you trade all of your players with value to stockpile draft picks"? Now it seems to be about the value of quarterbacks. I think we all agree that a franchise quarterback is a valuable thing. At least I think we all do, so that's a boring topic.

The first topic above is somewhat interesting, if only in the fact that there's disagreement. The second question has already been answered, and statistics say the answer is no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5311999)

Funny how once the 9ers lost Young and the Cowboys lost Aikman that neither team has done anything of note since, eh?

By the time they were rid of Aikman, the 'boys hadn't done anything of note for 5 years WITH him, and Harper and Irvin had been replaced by Galloway and Ismael, and the O-line had aged and retired [like a certain KC team of the mid 00s].

The 49ers fell apart from stem to stern when Young left, Debartolo was in criminal trouble, they were in cap hell, their D was giving up 40 points a game and they were starting a rookie QB. Their problems post-Young are far beyond a reflection of the importance of a QB.

Seriously, if you're gonna throw out 'the root of the 49ers problem is the loss of their Franchise QB,' you lost your license to dozens anyone for their FB takes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 5312031)

FWIW, Alvin Harper left after 92 to go to Tampa, so he really wasn't a factor in that dynasty at all. Joey Galloway was a much better WR than Alvin Harper ever was.

Those 9er teams were still competitive even into the late 90's with Young, to the point of going 12-4 and winning a playoff game the year before, with the 23rd ranked D. The "rookie" QB they were starting the next year was a 29 year old who had played for several years in the CFL. He wasn't straight out of SJST.

Again, you are conflating QBs with all the reason. It's not that QB is the entire reason for a team's success or failure, but it is the primary differentiating factor between continued competitiveness at the SB level, and the one and done's of so many others.

Marty's Chief teams were always paper tigers. They were far better in the Standings than they were in the playoffs. It happened time and time again. One of the main reasons is that although the teams were coached very well, and they consistently beat the trash of the league, they never had the quarterback to make plays when it had to be done in the playoffs.

A franchise QB leads them to a win in '97 against Denver and doesn't forget what down it is or how much time there is on the clock. A franchise QB doesn't throw three picks and get pulled and make them have to settle for a 40+ yard field goal in 0 degree weather with a bitch of a wind.

And yet, after all this time, people still think that the game manager mold and copying the 1990's is the path to success. It didn't work then and it definitely won't work now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5312056)

Again, you are conflating QBs with all the reason. It's not that QB is the entire reason for a team's success or failure, but it is the primary differentiating factor between continued competitiveness at the SB level, and the one and done's of so many others.

And you're conflating their lack of success after losing a long term franchise QB with said loss of QB, teams generally blow everything up when a long time leader leaves, the 9ers spectacularly so with their cap and legal problems on the heels of the ascendency of the Rams, and later Seahawks, in their division.
And Harper was on BOTH of their SB teams, and they haven't won a playoff game since he left. Further, it still stands, they didn't win a playoff game for 5 years WITH Aikman and without Harper, not that he's the lynchpin, but that Aikman's not the lynchpin you think he is.

If anything, Aikman is a very successful version of the manager QB you deride, stay cool, ride the running game, stick to the script and don't take a ton of sacks or make a ton of INTs, a formula that was perfected by Simms.

Did you really just place more value on a number 2 WR who just ran fly patterns than on the teams HOF QB....that's bright.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 5312069)

And Harper was on BOTH of their SB teams, and they haven't won a playoff game since he left. Further, it still stands, they didn't win a playoff game for 5 years WITH Aikman and without Harper, not that he's the lynchpin, but that Aikman's not the lynchpin you think he is.
.

There were 3 SB teams. The Cowboys won in 1996 with Irvin and Kevin Williams at WR and Aikman at QB for all 3.

Harper did leave after the 2nd SB win in 94 though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5312083)

Did you really just place more value on a number 2 WR who just ran fly patterns than on the teams HOF QB....that's bright.

That's pretty much NOT what I did, pretty explicitly.
Starting to understand why you are the way you are.

You are doing exactly what I talked about in another thread. You think Aikman was a game manager because of his stats, when he clearly wasn't.

If fantasy football had been prevalent in those days people would have constantly bitched about how Aikman doesn't put up big stats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5312090)

I think that because I watched the games. Great lines, great run game production. And QB play marked by execution and lack of mistakes, rather than gunslinging and cockiness. See, you hate the term game manager, because you think it's enexorably a bad thing. I'm not dissing him, I'm putting him in his proper perspective, an effective part of a great TEAM, doing his job.

Only on Chiefsplanet is there someone who believes Troy Aikman wasn't a franchise player.

I never understood the Aikman love. Aikman was a fine quarterback, but as a fan were you scared of Aikman? I sure wasn't. I was scared of Marino. I was scared of Montana. I was scared of Randall Cunningham. Aikman handed off really well behind a stellar offensive line and was a good quarterback in the passing game. Not a great quarterback.

Don't confuse that with saying I wouldn't have wanted him on our team. There's nothing wrong with Troy Aikman. But he was the driver of a pretty fast car in Dallas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 5312069)

Aikman was so much much more than a game manager, and part of their decline was attributed to the continual concussions that he received and the debut of the Troy Aikman face.

If you put Troy Aikman on the '97 Chiefs they win the Super Bowl, and the '95 Chiefs would get to the Super Bowl. They had the quintessential game manager QBs and we saw what it got them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5312094)

Only on Chiefsplanet is there someone who believes Troy Aikman wasn't a franchise player.

Faites vous parlez l'anglais?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 5312093)

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with a game manager, and he was great at that. I view a "game manager" in the same way. They don't make mistakes, and they help their team win. Nothing wrong with that. They just need a better team around them than a franchise quarterback does.