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!