Chiefs Restating the obvious, Dorsey learned from Ted Thompson

keg in kc · 04-03-2014, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messier

People here seem to have a problem with Dorsey, they say because last offseason doesn't look like this offseason. "Where's the continuity?!?" personally, I think they're just mad because we're not active this year, not that there's no continuity.

I think it's more about being upset because the chiefs haven't done exactly what people want. It happens every year, usually more with the draft. "I want (insert player name) but they didn't do that so I deem this (draft/free agency period/off-season) a complete failure."

I do it, too. I thought (and still think) Andy Reid was the wrong hire. I've been pretty vocal about that. They identified what they believed was the best available short and long term option at quarterback, which is something I should agree with philosophically, but I didn't like Alex Smith, so I wasn't happy there either. I was never really a dick about it but I wanted them to give Geno Smith a look. Which I believe they never did - not for a second. And if not him, then I would have gone Austin or Patterson. Fisher was a move I will never, ever like, short of the guy making the Hall.

Is that fair? Probably not, but that's the way it is. That's the way fans are. We aren't rational no matter how much we try to cloak our arguments in logic and stats. We believe that we know how things should be done, better than anyone else, be it owners or gms or other fans, and that's every bit as true for those of us who think the chiefs should never be questioned and everybody who does is an idiot as is it for the ones who thinks they're incompetent clowns and anybody who approves is a homer.

At the end of the day this is mostly emotion and we're mostly throwing tantrums because we didn't get the toys we want, or we're bitching out people who disagree with us, or we're slapping people on the back and hailing them as geniuses if they say something we actually like.

Pretty simple really. It's the internet and that's how things are done.

htismaqe · 04-03-2014, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I think it's more about being upset because the chiefs haven't done exactly what people want. It happens every year, usually more with the draft. "I want (insert player name) but they didn't do that so I deem this (draft/free agency period/off-season) a complete failure."

I do it, too. I thought (and still think) Andy Reid was the wrong hire. I've been pretty vocal about that. They identified what they believed was the best available short and long term option at quarterback, which is something I should agree with philosophically, but I didn't like Alex Smith, so I wasn't happy there either.

I was never a dick about it but I wanted them to give Geno Smith a look. Which I believe they never did - not for a second. And if not him, then I would have gone Austin or Patterson. Fisher was a move I will never, ever like, short of the guy making the Hall.

Is that fair? Probably not, but that's the way it is. That's the way fans are. We aren't rational no matter how much we try to cloak our arguments in logic and stats. We believe that we know how things should be done, better than anyone else, be it owners or gms or other fans, and that's every bit as true for those of us who think the chiefs should never be questioned and everybody who does is an idiot as is it for the ones who thinks they're incompetent clowns and anybody who approves is a homer.

At the end of the day this is mostly emotion and we're mostly throwing tantrums because we didn't get the toys we want, or we're bitching out people who disagree with us, or we're slapping people on the back and hailing them as geniuses if they say something we actually like.

Pretty simple really. It's the internet and that's how things are done.

I agree with a great bit of this, but for me it has NOTHING to do with what I wanted.

It has everything to do with the apparent contradictions in their moves.

People can ignore it all they want but trading two picks for a QB and then saying "we're building through the draft" don't comfortably co-exist.

That's just simple logic.

keg in kc · 04-03-2014, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I agree with a great bit of this, but for me it has NOTHING to do with what I wanted.

It has everything to do with the apparent contradictions in their moves.

People can ignore it all they want but trading two picks for a QB and then saying "we're building through the draft" don't comfortably co-exist.

That's just simple logic.

As Obi-wan said, it's really all about your point of view. I think it would be pretty simple to adjust that so-called logic - let's call it rationalize - and look at that move as their way of acquiring a long term solution at quarterback. He's their franchise quarterback, for all intents and purposes, and the only real difference from a rookie is that they skipped the 3 or 4 (or more) years of ups and downs that it takes them to develop.

So in one sense it is an immediate move, but on the other hand it's also still perhaps a long term investment made with those picks...

What it's not is Joe Montana on his last legs for a year or two. And while I've often said I'd gone with a guy like Jason Campbell, let's face it, that would've been a short term move, too. Whereas I think it's safe to say that Alex Smith may well be here as long as, if not longer than, most of the players drafted last year, including anyone they might have taken in the second.

I'm not saying I agree with it or like it or even that I look at it that way. I don't. What I am saying is that our brand of simple logic isn't necessarily the only one out there, and sometimes it can be beneficial to consider different angles, or recognize that our own may be skewed or biased.

At least, I know mine is, when it comes to most of the things this damned franchise does.

htismaqe · 04-03-2014, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

As Obi-wan said, it's really all about your point of view. I think it would be pretty simple to adjust that so-called logic - let's call it rationalize - and look at that move as their way of acquiring a long term solution at quarterback. He's their franchise quarterback, for all intents and purposes, and the only real difference from a rookie is that they skipped the 3 or 4 (or more) years of ups and downs that it takes them to develop.

So in one sense it is an immediate move, but on the other hand it's also still perhaps a long term investment made with those picks...

What it's not is Joe Montana on his last legs for a year or two. And while I've often said I'd gone with a guy like Jason Campbell, let's face it, that would've been a short term move, too. Whereas I think it's safe to say that Alex Smith may well be here as long as, if not longer than, most of the players drafted last year, including anyone they might have taken in the second.

I'm not saying I agree with it or like it or even that I look at it that way. I don't. What I am saying is that our brand of simple logic isn't necessarily the only one out there, and sometimes it can be beneficial to consider different angles, or recognize that our own may be skewed or biased.

At least, I know mine is, when it comes to most of the things this damned franchise does.

If Alex Smith gets a +$100M contract or worse, plays the 2014 season without an extension, it's all out the window.

Frosty · 04-03-2014, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I agree with a great bit of this, but for me it has NOTHING to do with what I wanted.

It has everything to do with the apparent contradictions in their moves.

People can ignore it all they want but trading two picks for a QB and then saying "we're building through the draft" don't comfortably co-exist.

That's just simple logic.

I get what you saying but you have to look at it from Clark's pov. After 2012, the stadium was nearly empty, the few fans that showed up were in black and fans were flying banners. While some of us would have preferred a rookie QB and a young, up and coming coach, that wasn't going to fly with the average fan out there.

Instead, Clark went with a big name coach who made moves to shore up the roster any way possible. It worked too - they won 9 in a row and filled up Arrowhead. Fans (the average fan) were excited again.

It is what it is. It may be that now that fans are back in Arrowhead that the strategy changes on how to build the team from here on out, which is why there is an apparent change in emphasis from FA/trades to the draft.

htismaqe · 04-03-2014, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosty

I get what you saying but you have to look at it from Clark's pov. After 2012, the stadium was nearly empty, the few fans that showed up were in black and fans were flying banners. While some of us would have preferred a rookie QB and a young, up and coming coach, that wasn't going to fly with the average fan out there.

Instead, Clark went with a big name coach who made moves to shore up the roster any way possible. It worked too - they won 9 in a row and filled up Arrowhead. Fans (the average fan) were excited again.

It is what it is. It may be that now that fans are back in Arrowhead that the strategy changes on how to build the team from here on out, which is why there is an apparent change in emphasis from FA/trades to the draft.

So they weren't following the Ted Thompson approach then.

People are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Frosty · 04-03-2014, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

So they weren't following the Ted Thompson approach then.

People are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Like BCD said - sometimes you have to deviate from the plan. It was desperate times for ownership.

htismaqe · 04-03-2014, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosty

Like BCD said - sometimes you have to deviate from the plan. It was desperate times for ownership.

Of course.

Frosty · 04-03-2014, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

So they weren't following the Ted Thompson approach then.

People are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

BTW, I really don't buy the "Dorsey makes all the decisions" thing. I think Reid has a lot more say in personnel than they keep saying. It seems that some of the moves so far, especially last season, have been more "Reid Eagles" than "Green Bay Packers". I don't think you can point at Ted Thompson articles like this and say "that's what the Chiefs are going to do".

htismaqe · 04-03-2014, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosty

BTW, I really don't buy the "Dorsey makes all the decisions" thing. I think Reid has a lot more say in personnel than they keep saying. It seems that some of the moves so far, especially last season, have been more "Reid Eagles" than "Green Bay Packers". I don't think you can point at Ted Thompson articles like this and say "that's what the Chiefs are going to do".

I would tend to agree.

These types of articles are mostly intended to make people feel better about what the Chiefs are doing right now.

Dinny Bossa Nova · 04-03-2014, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I think it's more about being upset because the chiefs haven't done exactly what people want. It happens every year, usually more with the draft. "I want (insert player name) but they didn't do that so I deem this (draft/free agency period/off-season) a complete failure."

I do it, too. I thought (and still think) Andy Reid was the wrong hire. I've been pretty vocal about that. They identified what they believed was the best available short and long term option at quarterback, which is something I should agree with philosophically, but I didn't like Alex Smith, so I wasn't happy there either. I was never really a dick about it but I wanted them to give Geno Smith a look. Which I believe they never did - not for a second. And if not him, then I would have gone Austin or Patterson. Fisher was a move I will never, ever like, short of the guy making the Hall.

Is that fair? Probably not, but that's the way it is. That's the way fans are. We aren't rational no matter how much we try to cloak our arguments in logic and stats. We believe that we know how things should be done, better than anyone else, be it owners or gms or other fans, and that's every bit as true for those of us who think the chiefs should never be questioned and everybody who does is an idiot as is it for the ones who thinks they're incompetent clowns and anybody who approves is a homer.

At the end of the day this is mostly emotion and we're mostly throwing tantrums because we didn't get the toys we want, or we're bitching out people who disagree with us, or we're slapping people on the back and hailing them as geniuses if they say something we actually like.

Pretty simple really. It's the internet and that's how things are done.

Wow, keg. Just wow.

This is the greatest post in the history of Chiefs Planet. Absolutely brilliant!!! I know I am rarely serious and always clowning around, but not this time.

Brutality meets honesty inside a person big enough to type it outloud.

Beautiful.

Dinny

**RealSNR** · 04-03-2014, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I think it's more about being upset because the chiefs haven't done exactly what people want. It happens every year, usually more with the draft. "I want (insert player name) but they didn't do that so I deem this (draft/free agency period/off-season) a complete failure."

I do it, too. I thought (and still think) Andy Reid was the wrong hire. I've been pretty vocal about that. They identified what they believed was the best available short and long term option at quarterback, which is something I should agree with philosophically, but I didn't like Alex Smith, so I wasn't happy there either. I was never really a dick about it but I wanted them to give Geno Smith a look. Which I believe they never did - not for a second. And if not him, then I would have gone Austin or Patterson. Fisher was a move I will never, ever like, short of the guy making the Hall.

Is that fair? Probably not, but that's the way it is. That's the way fans are. We aren't rational no matter how much we try to cloak our arguments in logic and stats. We believe that we know how things should be done, better than anyone else, be it owners or gms or other fans, and that's every bit as true for those of us who think the chiefs should never be questioned and everybody who does is an idiot as is it for the ones who thinks they're incompetent clowns and anybody who approves is a homer.

At the end of the day this is mostly emotion and we're mostly throwing tantrums because we didn't get the toys we want, or we're bitching out people who disagree with us, or we're slapping people on the back and hailing them as geniuses if they say something we actually like.

Pretty simple really. It's the internet and that's how things are done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dinny Blues

Wow, keg. Just wow.

This is the greatest post in the history of Chiefs Planet. Absolutely brilliant!!! I know I am rarely serious and always clowning around, but not this time.

Brutality meets honesty inside a person big enough to type it outloud.

Beautiful.

Dinny

Oh, the irony...