Which team would you be most confident going into 2006 with?

[Rain Man]

If you could end the season with any of these rosters, which one would give you the most confidence going into 2006?

Please take into account age and experience. For example, the 1997 version of Will Shields would be different than the 2004 version of Will Shields.

If you don't like this table, there's a better one attached in one of the early posts.

	1996		1997		1998		1999		2000		2001		2002		2003		2004		2005
QB	Bono		Grbac		Grbac		Grbac		Grbac		Green		Green		Green		Green		Green
HB	Allen		Hill/Allen		Bennett		Morris		Richardson		Holmes		Holmes		Holmes		Holmes		Johnson
FB	Anders		Anders		Anders		Richardson		Moreau		Richardson		Richardson		Richardson		Richardson		Richardson
WR	Penn		Rison		Rison		Rison		Morris		Kennison		Kennison		Kennison		Kennison		Kennison
WR	Vanover		Dawson		Alexander		Alexander		Alexander		Alexander		Morton		Morton		Morton		Parker
TE	Walker		Popson		Gonzalez		Gonzalez		Gonzalez		Gonzalez		Gonzalez		Gonzalez		Gonzalez		Gonzalez
LT	Alt		Criswell		Criswell		Parker		Tait		Tait		Roaf		Roaf		Roaf		Roaf/Black
LG	Szott		Szott		Parker		Szott		Blackshear		Waters		Waters		Waters		Waters		Waters
C	Grunhard		Grunhard		Grunhard		Grunhard		Grunhard		Wiegman		Wiegman		Wiegman		Wiegman		Wiegman
RG	Shields		Shields		Shields		Shields		Shields		Shields		Shields		Shields		Shields		Shields
RT	Siglar		Parker		Riley		Riley		Riley		Spears		Tait		Tait		Welbourn		Welbourn
K	Stoyanovich		Stoyanovich		Stoyanovich		Stoyanovich		Peterson		Peterson		Andersen		Andersen		Tynes		Tynes
P	Aguiar		Aguiar		Aguiar		Pope		Sauerbrun		Stryzinski		Stryzinski		Baker		Murphy		Colquitt
KR/PR	Vanover		Vanover		Vanover		Vanover		Cloud/Lockett		Hall		Hall		Hall		Hall		Hall
FS	Collins		Woods		Woods		Woods		Woods		Woods		Woods		Woods		Woods		Wesley
SS	Washington		Tongue		Tongue		Tongue		Wesley		Wesley		Wesley		Wesley		Wesley		Knight
CB	Carter		Carter		Carter		Dishman		Dennis		Crockett		Warfield		Warfield		Warfield		Surtain
CB	Hasty		Hasty		Hasty		Hasty		Hasty		Warfield		Bartee		McCleon		McCleon		Warfield
OLB	Davis		Davis		Davis		Edwards		Edwards		Edwards		Maslowski		Barber		Barber		Bell
OLB	Thomas		Thomas		Simmons		Thomas		Bush		Bush		Fujita/Bush		Fujita		Fujita		Johnson
MLB	Simien		Wooden		Edwards		Patton		Patton		Patton		Patton		Mitchell		Mitchell		Mitchell
LDE	Smith		Booker		Browning		Hicks		Hicks		Hicks		Hicks		Hicks		Hicks		Hicks
RDE	Booker		Browning		Thomas		O'Neal		Clemons		Clemons		Clemons		Holliday		Allen		Allen
LDT	Phillips		Phillips		Barndt		McGlockton		McGlockton		Browning		Browning		Browning		Sims		Sims
RDT	Saleaumua		Edwards (ILB)		McGlockton		Barndt		Williams		Ransom		Ransom		Sims		Dalton		Dalton

[Rain Man]

Gimme a minute. I'm still working on the formatting.

[Baby Lee]

YOu're not getting rid of my response that easily.

1997, without Grbac separating his shoulder, and all the Grbac/Gannon drama that ensued, would be the best. Add Roaf and Johnson/Priest, and I'd be feeling pretty good about us.

[Rain Man]

Here you go. Nice and neat. Anyone in bold was a pro bowler that year.

[Rain Man]

My rankings, from most optimistic to least optimistic:

2005 Strong o everywhere but one WR spot. D has reasonable LBs, good CBs, leader at SS, and Allen.
1997 Good, young defense with stars. Good young HB, weak at receivers and OT, good interior line
2004 Strong o everywhere. D is getting some players - Allen, Warfield, Mitchell.
2003 Very, very strong offense at all positions. Some talent on D, but no leaders. 2 or 3 good defensive players
1996 Very strong D at nearly every position, stunningly weak receivers, not strong in offensive backfield, good o-line except at RT
2002 Very, very strong offense at all positions. D-line is abysmal, LBs are abysmal. D-backs are okay except for Bartee (shudder)
2001 Offense is full of stars except at tackle. Defense is weak at most positions except some backfield spots.
1999 Defense showing cracks at CB and on line, reasonable o-line, pretty decent offensive skills players
1998 Pretty good D, though line is not great. Questionable o-line, good receivers, weak backs.
2000 Defense has lots of average players, no stars other than Hasty. Offense lacks a RB and has a weak left OL.


Am I a pollyanna homer?

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

YOu're not getting rid of my response that easily.

1997, without Grbac separating his shoulder, and all the Grbac/Gannon drama that ensued, would be the best. Add Roaf and Johnson/Priest, and I'd be feeling pretty good about us.

Hard to disagree with this.

We'd have replay now, meaning upon further review, Gonzalez would have had a touchdown.

[Baby Lee]

Who's coaching?

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Who's coaching?

That's a key question. Assume that it's whomever will be the actual coaching staff in 2006, whether that's Vermeil and Company or someone else.

[Baby Lee]

Well, if it's DV, put me down for WGAF.

[ping2000]

I'll take my electric football team. They could run right through our defense.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

My rankings, from most optimistic to least optimistic:

2005 Strong o everywhere but one WR spot. D has reasonable LBs, good CBs, leader at SS, and Allen.
1997 Good, young defense with stars. Good young HB, weak at receivers and OT, good interior line
2004 Strong o everywhere. D is getting some players - Allen, Warfield, Mitchell.
2003 Very, very strong offense at all positions. Some talent on D, but no leaders. 2 or 3 good defensive players
1996 Very strong D at nearly every position, stunningly weak receivers, not strong in offensive backfield, good o-line except at RT
2002 Very, very strong offense at all positions. D-line is abysmal, LBs are abysmal. D-backs are okay except for Bartee (shudder)
2001 Offense is full of stars except at tackle. Defense is weak at most positions except some backfield spots.
1999 Defense showing cracks at CB and on line, reasonable o-line, pretty decent offensive skills players
1998 Pretty good D, though line is not great. Questionable o-line, good receivers, weak backs.
2000 Defense has lots of average players, no stars other than Hasty. Offense lacks a RB and has a weak left OL.


Am I a pollyanna homer?

While it is not generally my policy to quote myself, I must note two things.

1. I think that the team has become more talented in each year of the Vermeil era.

2. I've been less optimistic in the years before the occasional strong season (1996, 2002). Maybe I don't know much.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

1. I think that the team has become more talented in each year of the Vermeil era.

A few things to note, and this isn't directed at you in particular or the Chiefs specifically:

1. fans always, always, always overrate the talent of their own players. It's a fairly chronic thing.

2. the inevitable human characteristic of "hope" inevitably leads to such things as "wait 'til next year" and "we're improving" and "give that draft pick another year to get more used to the system, and he's REALLY going to be a force".

The reality is that fans (and I'm not excluding myself here) need to remember that:

A. some good players may be let go because of salary cap considerations, or become free agents and leave, or whatever.

B. some players sometimes plateau at a level that is below where folks expected. Vince Wilfork actually regressed early this year, but seems to have turned his game back around again the last 4-5 games.

C. while young players are getting better, typically, older players are either getting worse, as they're on the downside, and are more prone to injury. Using the Chiefs as an example, for every guy like LJ and DJ who are going to be better next year, it's likely that some guys will slip a bit. I briefly looked at your roster and counted 16 guys with 9+ years of experience as of 2005. Assuming they all entered into the NFL at 22 years of age (I'm sure some were younger, some older) that means that they're all 31 years old or older, which is slightly past NFL peak.

(I note that this also applies to every other team, including the Patriots. While you could call the Patriots "veteran-laden" or "savvy", you could also just call them "old". It's a very fine line for GMs to dance along.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Well, if it's DV, put me down for WGAF.

Yep. There's alot of talent on this current team, which is why I voted for them. It was tough between it and 1997.

But if we have to take this year's coaches along with the team, well might as well forget it. This team has been coached into the ground...

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Yep. There's alot of talent on this current team, which is why I voted for them. It was tough between it and 1997.

But if we have to take this year's coaches along with the team, well might as well forget it. This team has been coached into the ground...

I don't pretend that I've seen much Chiefs football this year, but I don't understand this.

Wasn't Gun the DC during the Chiefs very impressive defensive years of the late 90s?

Wasn't Vermeil the HC of the GReatest Show on Turf, winning a Super Bowl, and then he and Saunders have consistently had an offensive that's been in the top 3 of every category worth mentioning over the last 4 or so years?

I still think it's a defensive talent issue more than anything. But I fully admit that this is the view from afar, without alot of up close analysis. This could mean I can't see the trees for the forest, but maybe you guys are too close to the situation. Besides, none of us are professional football talent evaluators, so...

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

My rankings, from most optimistic to least optimistic:

2005 Strong o everywhere but one WR spot. D has reasonable LBs, good CBs, leader at SS, and Allen.
1997 Good, young defense with stars. Good young HB, weak at receivers and OT, good interior line
2004 Strong o everywhere. D is getting some players - Allen, Warfield, Mitchell.
2003 Very, very strong offense at all positions. Some talent on D, but no leaders. 2 or 3 good defensive players
1996 Very strong D at nearly every position, stunningly weak receivers, not strong in offensive backfield, good o-line except at RT
2002 Very, very strong offense at all positions. D-line is abysmal, LBs are abysmal. D-backs are okay except for Bartee (shudder)
2001 Offense is full of stars except at tackle. Defense is weak at most positions except some backfield spots.
1999 Defense showing cracks at CB and on line, reasonable o-line, pretty decent offensive skills players
1998 Pretty good D, though line is not great. Questionable o-line, good receivers, weak backs.
2000 Defense has lots of average players, no stars other than Hasty. Offense lacks a RB and has a weak left OL.


Am I a pollyanna homer?

Yeah.

I went with '97 becuase going into the '98 season, I really thought we had a chance to win it all. I still think we would have won the SB that year had we defeated Denver. I was dead wrong about the '98, but that is how I saw it at the time. I certainly don't have anywhere near that level of confidnece for next year now.

Shields is probably gone, but is replacable. Green and Roaf are the keys on offense. If either one has catastrophic injury or succumbs to the inevitible ravages of time, then we are screwed. Kennison could be a question as well at his age coming off an injury. Parker is not very reliable.

Defense is still surrounded by more questions than answers. The defense remains weak in 4 areas: overpursuit, poor tackling, halo pass coverage, and limited pass rush. Overpursuit and poor tackling are related. We overpursue to compensate for poor tackling. If we dial back on overpursuit we will have more long runs because of broken tackles. Halo pass coverage (our defenders give the opposing receivers a halo, like they are fielding a punt) makes any kind of pass rush ineffective becasue the QB has too many easy targets to chose from. Maybe a different coach would allow more aggressive pass coverage, but I have no idea what the result would be. There is some young talent (Allen, Mitchell, Johnson) on which to build, but nothing else special about our D. Surtain could be added to the list if the coaches would allow him to play press coverage again. Knight's savy is great, but his lack of speed really hurt us this year. I count him as filling a role in an acceptable way rather than a true asset. After making some noise in the first few games of his return, Sims is disappearing again. He's still a question mark.

Beyond all this is an overall lack of toughness that after 5 years of observation I now assign to the coaching staff. If we could magically inject toughness into this team, I would maybe be more optimistic about trying to keep everythinng going for another year. But in reality, I think trying to maintain the status quo would result in a .500 type team next year.