2008 Cards almost won it with 9 win...

And New England lost it with 18 wins.

What's your point?

10 wins.

Whoop-dee-****ing-doo.

Meh. I don't agree.

They are infinitely more talented than us at WR and QB. Defensively, I'd take Von over anybody but our LB group is just as good as theirs is. Flowers and Berry are considerably younger than Champ, so I'm going to take those two guys over their secondary.

Our DL is in disarray but we definitely have talent.

Offensive line? Meh Meh Meh...I can't judge a Peyton Manning offensive line. He makes his lines look WAY, WAY, WAY better than they really are...elite or not elite.

Let me put it this way.

You put John Fox and Peyton Manning in KC and Romeo Crennel and Matt Cassel in Denver...

...

I'm thinking KC 12-4
Denver 3-13

SO MAYBE Denver, outside of the QB position, has 1 more win worth of talent than KC.

You don't get to - or win - a Super Bowl with just a QB.

The problem is that this fanbase automatically undervalues players on other teams, while overvaluing our players.

You need a complete team - including a QB.

And even then, sometimes it's not enough.

Could Geno Smith come in next year and lead us to 8 or 9 wins?

Maybe.

But unless the new GM starts hitting on some draft picks and making some smart FA signings, 8-9 wins and the occasional one-and-done in the playoffs is the ceiling.

The reason we are so terrible is simple:

We have terrible, terrible, WRETCHED QB play...and terrible coaching.

Good schemes make average players look great (sometimes). We have shit, shit, SHITTY schemes...Romeo is so soft and plays such a shitty defense it's disgusting. We show ZERO aggression. Bend don't break doesn't cut it in the passing NFL.

Would you rather put a ton of heat on the QB and risk an 80 yard quick TD here and there...or just let teams consistently pick up 3rd and 6 all game long because you're soft as shit and instead of an occasional quick hitter they go on 5 long scoring drives that kill the defense in the process?

We are a competent staff and QB away from being a good football team.

I've been very complimentary of Denver all season long and think they have AN ELITE DEFENSE with AN ELITE SCHEME...but I do not think they have more than 1 win worth of talent than us if you take Manning out of the equation (see 2011)...and outside of the WR position I don't see them overwhelming us on any other unit.

An excellent, albeit devastatingly depressing analysis, Mr. OnTheWarpath58.

By all rights, however, I think we shouldn't count Dr. Evil's first year ... or, at least, we should weight it less heavily. That was, by any reasonable standard, a rebuild year for sure. The new regime inherited a sloppy, lazy, completely unmotivated gaggle of out-of-shape quitters. Although I despise Dr. Evil as much or more than anyone else on planet Earth, I'd give that to any new GM/HC group.

What is unforgivable, though, was mentioned by Mr. Rausch earlier today. It's entirely unacceptable that you are worse in year 4 of your "rebuild" than you were in year 1 ... and we are.

It goes without saying that the root problem is lack of talent. But I'd add that it's lack of talent at some of the most crucial positions. And, of course, if you don't have quality depth in the NFL, you don't have squat because there are always injuries.

Frankly, I've given up thinking about this too hard because, when I do, the reality hits me once more just how screwed we are. The hopelessness that permeates this organization is palpable and, given our current situation and the total failure to improve or even stabilize the situation, we have only Pioli to thank. So, here's to you, Dr. Evil. May you wallow in opossum urine all your days.

FAX

You're making my point, dumbass.

You claimed adding a HOF QB to this team would result in 10 wins.

Who cares about 10 wins?

The goal is to win a championship.

It doesn't matter who we draft in April, he's not going to play to the level of a HOF QB.

Will he make the team better? Sure.

But until the new GM starts improving the roster around him, those 10 wins and an occasional playoff loss are going to be as good as it gets.

Give us names of all this great talent on GB. Other than Rodgers and Mathews.

Not depressing at all. In 3 days, we'll be rid of him forever.

Well unfortunately until Peyton Manning retires we're going to be settling for fighting for the 5th and 6th seed every year so I doubt we have immediate playoff success REGARDLESS...

and this is the point I've been saying for YEARS in regard to the great Brady/Manning debate. YEARS. I'm glad to see people are starting to understand.

AND, again, we get grossly outcoached every game. Defense alone we have Johnson, Hali, Houston, Flowers and Berry with guys like Poe who have potential and guys like Arenas who are serviceable. You can't have an all-star at every position you need coaching to come up with schemes to put the 'average to system' players in position to succeed.

We do not have that luxury.

Denver has a QB that consistently sustains LONG drives and puts them in the lead so they can play to their defensive strengths (get after the passer)...we don't. Peyton Manning makes that solid defense with great playmakers ELITE and PETRIFYING.

We have Houston and Hali. If Peyton Manning were our QB he'd enable them to be ELITE and PETRIFYING.

I don't think you understand HOW MUCH Peyton Manning does for that team...offense and...and...ESPECIALLY defense.

not to mention the fact Denver can take risks, or call aggressive defensive plays because you know what? What's the worst thing that happens? They give up a long TD and Peyton Manning gets the ball? Oh no!

We get down by 10+? Yeah. Ha ha. We're done.

I adamantly disagree with any notion of a "rebuild" in the sense that a team cannot be reasonably successful while going through it. Thus, discounting or prorating our evaluation of Pioli in '09 in nonsensical in my view.

Our talent at key positions was pretty damn good. Still is, though it's largely the same guys. If Pioli were even reasonably good at his job, we could have been a consistent playoff team from '09 forward.

I don't care whom Clark hires as the next GM; the sonofabitch doesn't get an "evaluation year." Furthermore, "rebuilding" is rhetorical bullshit sold on fans to get them to continue to support financially a shit team. It's fluff and does nothing but absolve blame and buy time.

"Evaluation years," "Right 53s," "Processes," and "Rebuilding years" can be shoved right up the next GM's ass if he even dares utter these trite cliches.

we were a blocked FG away from making the playoffs in a shit division with Matt Cassel, Tyler Palko and Kyle Orton at QB with Jackie Battle as our best RB and Sabby Piscatelli starting at safety.

Dreadful 2012. No doubt.

Fortunately, we have easy fixes.

We have to hit one two things to be competitive in 2013. Geno Smith + a competent coaching staff. Those two things alone can get us to 8 wins.

Then we need to hit on some free agents, maybe hit on ONE more draft pick...and maybe see ONE guy like Poe develop into a good starter.

We have FAR less rebuilding to do than the Colts did this year (even though I think that is the luckiest team we've seen in a long time).

I'm also a firm believer that Indianapolis is a pretty lucky team this year.

Luck has been amazing.

I don't see their overall group as a talented core of players.

ROFL

Okay.

What do you call it when you install entirely new defensive and offensive playbooks and schemes, reassign positional responsibilities to your "best" players, and introduce an entirely new leadership group into the mix?

I know ... let's call it "Gloobering"! That should work just fine.

FAX

Luck has something like 7 game winning drives this year...

So yeah, that's amazing. Shows what kind of gamer he is.

BUT FLIP SIDE IT...they could very easily be 3-12. That team, IMO, takes a big step backwards next year...I think Luck puts it all together in year 3 though.

Outside of QB, are the Chiefs more talented than the Colts? How are the Redskins possibly surviving during this difficult "rebuilding" process? Hell, what about the Seahawks, the least talked about good team in the NFL? That "rebuild" is a bitch.

Why in the world should the highest paid GM in the game get a mulligan, if one entire season can even be counted so lightly?

The "fan base" might but not on here so much. On here any player for any other team is better than whomever the Chiefs have is the normal schtick around here.

Someone who is good with that PFF stuff could put all of our players or position groups against other teams and probably get a more accurate measure of where our "team" stands as far as talent goes.

Here's an obversation regarding the Colts - and this came from Gary Kubiak after the Texans played them - He said that they are deep in that when you take away the obvious stars - that most all the talent is the same level. They play a lot of thier roster each game (He said more than any team in the league) and the dropoff in talent when they sub is minimal. He said that it's a very good way to go through a rebuild in that teams can remain competitive with a GOOD QB at the helm. Interesting...

We have easy fixes, yet didn't fix anything in FOUR YEARS.

That is on the Fat **** in the GM office.

I disagree that we didn't fix anything.

The offensive line has been massively upgraded.

Winston, Asamoah and Hudson are all good players.

And it will be on the next guy as well.

As has been pointed out several times, the core of this team hasn't changed in four years - it's just gotten older.

We have all these easy fixes, yet the Executive of the Decade wasn't able to fix anything in four years.

A QB is part of the problem, but far from the entire problem.

I'm heading out to dinner, check in later.

the opposite could be said about quite a few here too

Preaching to the choir.

QB is at least 75% of the problem.

You guys preached for years about the difference a franchise QB could make and now that we're on the verge of getting one, you say that a QB won't make that big of a difference.

THIS.

Pretty much.

Don't really give a shit about how much or how little talent there is on the team.

Get a QB, THEN go bitch about how Kendrick Lewis isn't good enough.

It's more than 20% of the problem. Or 30%. Or 50%.

It's around 70% of the problem I would say if you don't have a franchise QB in this era of the NFL. That would not have been the case in the 90s. It's the case now, however.

Our running game is exceptional and our pass protection proved that behind Orton, they are fine. Our passing game improves behind a new QB and we need one more passing target (at least). And we need an offensive coordinator with an imagination.

Our defense, our pass rushers are outstanding, are ILBs are good enough, and Poe should hopefully continue to improve. Our secondary needs 1 or 2 pieces -- doesn't need to be pro bowlers, but improvements are necessary. Our DEs need to improve, but that's not a critical position.

So essentially you're talking about a franchise QB, #2 receiver, a coaching overhaul, 1 or 2 pieces in the secondary, and hopeful improvements on DE (but not going to kill us if not. A good front office can easily accomplish that in one offseason, given our draft position and cap space. Particularly since a franchise QB and coaching overhaul are almost certainties.

THIS.
funny how things change
Posted via Mobile Device

Sorry, but that's BS.

Do you know how much crap homers on this site have spewed about things like:


Jon Baldwin vs Demaryius Thomas

Tony Moeaki vs ANY tight end drafted in recent memory.

Dexter McCluster vs Players Who Actually Make Plays

Brady Quinn vs Legit NFL QBs

Tyson Jackson vs Any Asshole With A Helmet

Stanford Routt vs Corners Who Aren't Burn Victims



There is precious little talent on this roster to "undervalue."

True on both counts.

Except the o line as long as we keep Albert.

It's all on the fail that is Pioli
Posted via Mobile Device

come on man. Seriously?

It goes both ways. Look around
Posted via Mobile Device

Very little, tbh. That doesnt mean a qb wont make a huge difference.

That's a huge ****ing haul, dude.

We need 6 or 7 new starters.

QB
WR
LDE
RDE
ILB
CB
S

And we need massive improvement from current starters at:

LG
NT
TE

That's not an easy fix.

We need two offseasons, IMO, before we talk about serious playoff contention.

Next season, if Geno is drafted and plays at a solid level I think we can go 8-8 or so. No better.

The roster needs work.

Examples of undervalued players? Lay them on me.

To Pioli's credit, he took a roster full of major liabilities at starting positions to a roster that's rounded out with "good enough" guys. He did a pretty good job of building a team around supporting cast members. So he deserves credit for that.

The problem is that good GMs build around playmakers at core positions and Pioli decided to lay up every chance he got. That's ridiculous for a GM paid the way he is to not do that for 4 years. So the good news is, the foundation is set -- good support players, great cap space. We just need a GM now who can put together a few great drafts and make some quality free agency moves. Not as far off as people think. We're in a much better situation than a lot of new GMs walk into.

Everytime somebody says, "No, the talent actually sucks on this team" you get to ask them what we need to replace.

Is it Bowe? No.
Is it Albert? No.
Is it our passrushers? No.
Is it our RB? No.
Is it our starting CB? No. (especially was not the case when Carr was still here)

We're talking about upgrades at WR2, TE, one or two spots in the back 8, and a defensive line that needs to be re-evaluated.

That's a list you won't find on any Super Bowl teams, but give me a ****ing break if it's this insurmountable task that we will be lucky to get half completed. And let's not act like if Geno Smith and our new HC work out that anybody will give a flying **** about those positions listed.

The QB masks about 70% of a teams problems if he's legit. So let's get the legit QB and worry about everything else at a later time.

Dude do we have to go through all the players on other teams people suck off around here?

I don't have time for the list tonight clay
Posted via Mobile Device

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that a franchise QB isn't going to make enough of a difference all by himself.

Some of you seem to think this is a championship-caliber roster just missing a franchise QB.

It's far from that, and 23 wins in 4 years - as many as Cleveland, Buffalo, Oakland, Miami and Jacksonville - who are also missing a QB and according to most don't have the talent we do.

Let's use Oakland again.

Their QB situation has been even worse than ours over the past 4 years.

Coaching has been abysmal. Ownership as well.

98% of this board would say we have a TON more talent than Oakland.

Why do they have more wins in the last 4 years?

Hint: Because we're not as talented a roster as some of you think.

Matt Cassel is the worst starting qb in the league was typed a billion times on the planet.

Now all these teams are worse off than us?
Posted via Mobile Device

If we get a GM or HC that knows their shit and is able to hit on one or two draft picks per year, the talent deficiency is not going to take long to make up at all.

There's work to be done, sure. The point is that if teams like the Colts can draft a QB and get some other good players in the draft/free agency to fill in gaps, why the **** can't we?

Answer: Because we're the Chiefs and nothing ever goes right and we'll always be terrible boo hoo hoo

I'm tired of that ****ing attitude. It's possible to be realistic and still optimistic for the future.

And that's the key.

SERIOUS contention.

Too many people here are content with winning 8 or 9 games.

Jesus Christ himself at QB doesn't make this roster a Super Bowl champion - and that's all that matters.

Of course a franchise QB will make a huge difference. But until we start drafting better and signing solid FA's and not slapdicks, we're not going to become a consistent contender.

Geno and Cowher and this is a 10 win playoff team next year.

Finally, some common sense.

It is going to take time.

Too many people think this roster as it stands is just missing a QB.

You come out of the next draft with a QB, WR, CB. Sign a free agent FS , grab some decent dlinmen and see what happens.

KC is more talented than OAK. In fact, I think the Chiefs are quite a bit more talented. However, all positions are ancillary to the QB, and without the QB the other talent cannot fully come to the fore.

OK OTWP, throw out what players exactly we need to upgrade and what spots?

No.

We need to fix the defensive line and find a CB who isn't a burn magnet before the defense is legit.

We basically have no idea about this defense in real games vs real teams because they haven't been in the situation but once, and they gave up 30 points (2010 Ravens playoff game).

Does anyone think for a moment that if we were contending this year that Jalil Brown would not be a ****ing liability in a playoff game?

Jalil has been playing better as of late, but he needs to be upgraded.


Take the dline. Have them 1 gap with Poe, Powe, Pitoatua, Bailey, draft pick 1, free agent 1.

A good front office can tackle most of that list in one offseason given our draft position and cap space. That good offseason (assuming we fix the QB and get a top notch coaching stuff) puts us in the hunt in year 1. 1 or 2 more good offseasons puts us in a serious hunt.

It's not as bad as it looks. Like I said, it's a much better position than most GMs walk into.

Oakland has been trotting out JaMarcus Russell, Jason Campbell, Kyle Boller and Carson Palmer over the past 4 years.

Their QB situation has been just as bad or worse. You say we have more talent.

2 fewer wins over 4 years.

Or what we could do at CB? Maybe flip a pick to someone for a starting caliber CB.


I'd sign DRC, or Grimes in free agency for cheap, spend some money on Byrd, or flip a pick to someone.

Yet those four are better than Matt Cassel.

Re: this thread

I haven't seen but one person saying we are a QB away from serious contention (maybe o.city).

However, a lot of people are saying a potential franchise QB would vastly improve the overall talent on the roster.

That's the boat Im currently in.

Hmm... you know, I guess I just didn't realize that we were basically saying the same thing.

Ah well.

Where have you been for the past 18 months?

People have been saying it constantly.

Media center and fantasy planet. :)

I don't religiously post on the lounge to avoid people like the aforementioned.

Serious contention? No.


Being a .500 team? I think it could.


There are some definite upgrades that need be made. But I also think the QB situation and coaching staff severly handicap this team.

No, they really aren't.

Amazing how people flip-flop. It wasn't that long ago that Cassel was a Pro Bowl QB that just needed more weapons.

Don't throw that at me. I've never once said that.

Cassel has never been a capable NFL QB

Not at you specifically. Could apply to just about anyone here.

Just about.

How was Applebees by the way?

To specify, all I'm saying is that we have the cornerstones in place.

Pass Rusher? Check
Star WR? Check
LT? Check

QB? Not so much.

If we hit on the QB, then we can start building farther along. But until we do that, it really doesn't matter either way.

How should I know? I'm just a passerby in the football game of life.

But here's my best guess ...

When other franchise find themselves in the gloobering phase, they have the benefit of certain advantages the Chiefs simply do not possess. Namely, things like a more successful tradition or better coaching or stellar players at key positions (like say ... quarterback) or more recent experience in playing in and even winning playoff games.

As I see it, there are so many variables (schedule, fitting players into entirely new schemes or not, quality at key positions, or lack thereof, etc., etc.) that it's very difficult to isolate one particular gloober issue or (as the OP does) compare franchises in the way you wish to do, Mr. DeezNutz. We cannot magically snap our fingers and become the Redskins or the Seahawks or the Colts or anybody else.

I'll give you a couple of examples of what I mean ...

The Chiefs have been historically bad at things like developing players. Unless we draft a player who enters the league with franchise or near-franchise talent and a driving, personal desire to improve (say ... a Tony Gonzalez type) we rarely see them improve from "okay" to "great". We've had a few, but not many. Additionally, the Chiefs seem to suck at what some people call "complimentary football". We either have a good offense and a bad defense or vice versa. That means when we try and gloober (like those teams you mention) we are working from a fundamental, organizational, systemic disadvantage. It's the reason we are always the league's ugly bridesmaids. And until those fundamentals change, we'll always suck when it counts the most.

And perhaps most importantly, I'm not sure that other franchises (the good ones, I mean) maintain the inherent loser mentality that the Chiefs have cultivated for some 50 years. In social terms, those franchises have a "high bottom" whereas ours is apparently bottomless.

FAX

I don't even know what OTWP is arguing anymore. Oh well.

KC players suck! Other teams players are Gods!

Send in end the 400 pound men army to end this... JFC...

This is never said around here.
Posted via Mobile Device

Good post. I appreciate Mrs. FAX taking the time to write it.

Plagiarism or any 'ism aside, all of what I've bolded, at least to me, ties directly back to the GM. Now, I'm not suggesting that our new GM will be able to snap his fingers and make everything magically better. But I do expect tangible progress, even in year one.

As to history and culture, are we really at a disadvantage with respect to these qualities in comparison to the Seahawks and Colts? The latter of which should have been known at the Mannings, with an enormous frontal lobe on the side of the helmets.

That he is smarter than us and is always right.

Ryan Fitzpatrick ROFL

I'm still waiting for this to be answered...

This is what a guy like Geno and new Head Coach would be walking into. Plus a damn solid O-line to boot.

I have no idea, but I think maybe the New York Giants might come close to having all that stuff.

FAX

Pretty close to the same damn thing Pioli walked into 4 years ago.

Pioli ****ing sucks.
Posted via Mobile Device

All they have is the pass rush and the receivers. They have no running game. Average LBs and TERRIBLE defensive backs.