Quote:
Originally Posted by GoChiefs
BULLSHIT!!!!
If the Chiefs had added the right players in four or five key positions they'd be a much better team right now.
We could have gone after Brian Dawkins...instead we got Mike Brown.
We could have found a guard or tackle in an OL-deep draft...instead we ****ed around with Goff and Newdookie.
|
Sure, if all you care about is how the team
looks right now, if the (false) perception that they're "getting better" in 2009 matters all that much to you. If winning a few more games during a losing season is a big deal to you, if going 8-8 so you don't have to suffer through any down times is more important that working towards a long-term turnaround. If you're a big fan of the way Carl Peterson did business. Which I am not.
As for me, well, in my view, the team would not be better in any
meaningful way if they exchanged some of the scrubs that are starting now for different scrubs. YOU might feel better, if they'd won 4 or 5 games now instead of 3 (and there's no guarantee that anything would be any different with different names on the jerseys), but at the end of the day it would end exactly the same way: looking for replacements in 2010 and beyond to build the team that they want.
This year was not the time for bold free agent moves, in my opinion. I think they have to build the core of their team first, through the drafts, and then fill in the holes that way. All of the guys you're bitching about are placeholders for guys who'll be drafted later on. Which is I think the right approach.
Can they do it? I don't know. I do know it's not something that can be done in one offseason. Or two. And I'm not supporting Pioli or anybody else when I say that. What I am saying is that I can't judge the quality or lack thereof of their philosophy or approach at this point.
Because it's too soon.
Which I'm sure I've said before.
But by all means don't let me interrupt your hilarious overreaction and bi-polar weekly behavior.