There was a game right before Roaf came back where we went to exclusive use of the play action pass. The extra half second Black was afforded allowed Black to give Green 'good' pass protection for that game.

In the straight drop back passing games I would agree with you.

How about some balance for a change? Best athlete available is the way to go in the draft. You can't keep focusing exclusively on the defense and hope to be able to compete when all the offensive playmakers disappear. As important as defense is, there aren't many teams like the Ravens superbowl team that win almost exclusively with defense. I'd rather shoot for some balance than hope to bring this defense up to the level of that Ravens team before LJ leaves or has a career ending injury.

You're not referring to the Philly game are you? That's probably not the best example of what you want KC to return to--snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Wow. If CP lets him follow-through on those....I'd be pretty happy. The only thing I'd say, he needs to be flexible with game-calling....over-commiting to the run, and recreating a Martyball-like predictability would not be a good thing.

Also, I'm assuming that if we need to fill a spot, and we have the money and cap space we'd still be willing to go after someone. For example, I don't expect us to be "active" with FA this off-season, but if we pass on an affordable and clear upgrade at, say, DT, WR, DE, FS, or CB.....I'll be pissed.

I don't know which game I am referring to. What I am referring to is that Black did an OK job of protecting Green when the passing game relied on the play action aspect.

Or the Buffalo game...Black had a stand out performance in that game too.

I think he's talking about the Texans game.

The defense has been Dicked around with for 5 years, and that's the problem.

Now let's get it fixed. :)

Of course...when your RB runs for 211, the key was the play action passing game.

LOL.

How about some defense for a change?

Look, i'm not saying ignore the offense completely from here on out, but the priority should be defense.

We lost more games due to lack of pass rush and pass coverage than due to a dropped ball here and there.

I agree. We have solid starters for 2006 at every position on offense, provided T-Rich is re-signed.

Our first round pick needs to be an immediate starter on defense.

Yeah but we threw for like 150 in the first half, much of it off play action.

So now you're agreeing with the "fool"?

If Saunders had used that play-action gameplan that he used against the Texans in the other games that Roaf missed, we probably would've been in the playoffs instead of the Steelers.

Actually, it was 175 in the first half, while LJ had 117 rushing. Green finished the game with 220, LJ 211.

Maybe it was great play action. Then again, maybe it was the Texans.

And I'm not saying ignore the defense completely. Where we differ is that I think the priority should be on the best available player instead of bypassing an offensive player in favor of an inferior defensive player.

The top performing player taken at the top of the draft by the Chiefs in recent memory is Larry Johnson, an offensive player that they took when defense was clearly the most pressing need. While it's true that that hasn't been enough to win a superbowl, where would the Chiefs be now if they didn't have LJ? By contrast, they took Junior Siavii to address their glaring DT need in '04 and we all know how that's turned out so far. If a Derrick Johnson falls to them this year then hell yes, pick a defensive player. But if they have the choice against a stud offensive lineman or a defensive lineman who is a reach, I say take the stud. All else being equal, take the player at the position of most need where we have the least potential already on the roster.