Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > Archives

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-15-2001, 03:03 PM  
keg in kc keg in kc is offline
oxymoron
 
keg in kc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: OP/KC/Whatever
Casino cash: $5025
...the Chiefs about to make a big move, but not until 2002.

First of all, the division looks to be very strong, and we have to play the toughest teams of the NFC East next season, Washington, NYG and Philly. No real "pushovers" on the 2001 schedule except for Arizona, and, again, we don't have the benefit of an easy schedule which can facilitate upwards movement (i.e. the Rams playing a last place schedule in the weakened NFC West when they won the title, the Titans and Ravens getting the benefit of four "gimmies" with Cinci and Cleveland, so on and so forth). Denver and Oakland will be dueling for the division next season, Seattle will be very tough to beat and San Diego looks to be on the right track, IMO - we may well be delegated to the division's cellar for a year, which would actually be very good for a run at the title in 2002...

Second, as I step back and take an objective look at our team, I see:

O-line: We'll have a good O-line, but are adding, in all likelihood, two starters in the middle. It will take some time for the line to meld.

TE: Tony G may be the best ever, and I expect to see continued improvement from him - he's not going to plateau quite yet, in my opinion.

WR: Alexander had an impressive year statistically, but (again, IMO) still lacks focus and maybe motivation; he drops entirely too many catchable passes. Morris played well, but there are some questions he needs to answer with his play in 2001. We don't have a legitimate #3 WR for this system, IMO, and that includes Lockett if we keep him. Ricks is a wild card, at this point.

RB: Richardson, Moreau and/or Cloud. Maybe Holmes. Maybe a rookie. Who knows? Another wildcard...

QB: ????

And on defense:

DE: We have two good, young ends, but how is our depth, especially if Browning is moved to starting DT?

DT: We have an obvious hole here, be it depth or a starter.

LB: This is, in my opinion, another wild card. I don't think, contrary to popular belief, that Maslowski is our new MLB. I think he's our new strong side backer, and I think we have a hole on the inside right now, because I think Patton has lost a step. I think getting someone to play inside is a must, and in addition, depth is a question with the cutting of Ron George.

CB: Can the sophmores hack it?? Do we want them to have to?

S: Feel pretty good about this, but will Wesley suffer the soph slump? Was Woods' play held back by the soft zone (I expected more from him in '00).

As you can see, in my opinion at least, there are a hell of a lot of questions going into the 2001 season, far, far more than just the QB position, and I'm not expecting much improvement in our record from last season. I am looking for improvement in the Chiefs as a team, and I can't wait to see what sort of new system we'll see on both sides of the ball. And I think things will fall into place for a real run in 2002 and 2003. We have the core talent in place for many of our starting positions, and if the right moves continue to be made (I think we've done well so far this off-season), I think we'll be in the frey very soon.

Just my view. Cautiously optimistic, but not expecting a whole lot in the Win column in 2001.

Thoughts? Your predictions?
Posts: 51,368
keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.
 
Old 03-15-2001, 03:27 PM   #2
oleman47 oleman47 is offline
Starter
 

Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Wichita
Casino cash: $5000
I do like what they seem to be doing in fa, keeping it as young as fa can be, and going straight to need. However, the draft should be the best available played not position dependent.

I do not have the slightest idea of where we are on defense. Lb, cb, dt, and depth look ??? to me. The Chiefs are obviously working on the offense first and I am surprised no cbs have been looked over.

Good summary!
Posts: 512
oleman47 is a favorite in the douche of the year contest.oleman47 is a favorite in the douche of the year contest.
 
Old 03-15-2001, 03:40 PM   #3
kcred
Guest
 

Casino cash: $
keg - I can't find much to argue with in your assessment. With or without Green, I can see a higher draft pick next year than this one. And though I believe he would bring more to the immediate table, I believe it will not do much for the future. With him, we may end up fourth, over the Chargers. That is the main reason I am against giving up anymore than we have. It is also the reason, if we are going to do it, do it now, and clean everything up this season. This maybe after the draft BS, is killing me.
Posts: n/a
 
Old 03-15-2001, 07:57 PM   #4
Gaz Gaz is offline
Defense Homer
 
Gaz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Rancho Gaz
Casino cash: $5100
OFFENSE

OL: We still need a starting LG. Blackshear will be a nice backup; fine in pass protection, but not as impressive in run blocking. The addition of Wiegmann not only addresses the OC position, it gives us an emergency backup Guard. The specter of Shields playing LT last season haunts me still. Hopefully, we will see what Alford can do this season. We still need a LG. Although Hutchinson is supposed to be the best Guard to come along in years, I do not expect Carl to take an OLineman with the #12 pick. The Green Homers would tear him to pieces.

QB: Whomever our starting QB is this season, be it Beuerlein or Aikman or Dilfer or [insert XFL or arena QB name here], he is a stopgap. We will spend a #3 pick on our QBOTF. We should hope that he is ready very quickly to take over the starting job, because it looks like QB will be the weakest spot in the O. A sharp departure from last season.

RB: I like Richardson. He is fast, powerful, has great hands and can pick up the blitz. I might take a HB in the 3rd or 4th Round, but Richardson would be my starting HB, with Moreau as backup. If we have the cap room and can pick up Holmes, so much the better. A new OC gives me faith that the RB will be properly used and that will elevate the play of whomever gets the featured back job.

TE: I look forward to seeing Gonzalez take over the Winslow role in Chargers Midwest. Our strongest Offensive position. He will be the workhorse of the new Offense. It should be exciting to watch.

WR: An up-tempo Offense should take advantage of Alexander’s YAC ability. Perhaps our new OC and QB will hit him in stride and let him run. I am holding out hope that Morris will be much better after a full camp. He certainly showed some ability at times, but disappeared at others. Sadly, I see no real role for Lockett beyond 3rd down possession receiver. He has great hands, but lacks speed and strength. A speedy #3 WR should be on our draft/FA list.

The most exciting thing about the Offense is the negative Stooge space. I truly believe that Raye hurt our Offense more than the lack of a featured HB or any of Grbac’s mental mistakes. An OC who understands mismatches, is willing to attack the Defense and has even just a bit of unpredictability to his play calling should improve our Offense by an order of magnitude.

I do not see us being Rams Lite. We lack the speed. But I do see us implementing a variation of the Chargers Offense. We have all the tools, except for the QB and the #3 WR, both of which we should be able to obtain in the off-season. Our Offense will not longer have to rely solely on the QBs arm, and we will not see as many 80-yard bomb plays. We can diversify and attack from many directions. Although I liked Maulball, it is dead and I eagerly anticipate watching its successor.

xoxo~
gaz
expecting a more dependable and diverse Offense.
Posts: 5,908
Gaz has disabled reputation
 
Old 03-15-2001, 08:13 PM   #5
Gaz Gaz is offline
Defense Homer
 
Gaz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Rancho Gaz
Casino cash: $5100
DEFENSE

DL: Our DL crushed some QBs last season, but the also left huge gaping holes through which RBs and QBs alike ran for serious yardage. Our DL must pressure the backfield, but must do it with discipline. They did not converge on the QB so much as they just blasted up field. A run-stuffing DT would be a powerful addition and should be a priority in the draft.

LB: A huge disappointment last season. To be fair, the Stooge had them dropping back into coverage to protect the rookie secondary, but I expected great things from Edwards. Bush failed to live up to our expectations and Patton seemed to age halfway through the season. The shining light in the LB corps was the unleashing of Maslowski’s fire and passion. We have some depth at the LB position and must hope that a DC with a spine will use them properly. The LB corps should be the drummer of the team, providing the drive and power to the Defense.

CB: Rookies, rookies everywhere. And the seasoned veteran is not an impressive player. We will miss Hasty’s rock-solid presence very much. Hasty could take away half the field by himself. We no longer have that luxury. And we have no idea of Dennis, Bartee and Warfield can function in an attacking Defense. Although Fred Smoot is tempting, any action at the CB position should come in FA, with a veteran player already steeped in the professional game.

S: Wesley is everything you want in a Safety. Fast, athletic and he brings a full load when he hits. He is already poised to blow past Woods as the best Safety on the team. I am not terribly concerned about this position.

At the risk of being redundant, the most exciting thing about the Defense is the lack of Stooge input. No more stinking soft zone [although I would not be surprised to see some zone on the field]. No more protecting the rookies. And no more passive Defense. The thing I most admired about the Broncos D was Robinson’s willingness to attack and blitz. Sure, we will occasionally get burned for a long gainer, but if that is the price I pay for a return to the days when the Chiefs Defense dictated terms to the enemy Offense, then so be it. I pay that price willingly.

I see the Defense as the weakest part of the team this season. The loss of Hasty will hurt terribly. We will have to attack the backfield ferociously to avoid hanging our rookie secondary out to dry. I expect to see many an enemy WR pulled down from behind or hammered by Wesley after a long gainer. But as long as I see a return to aggressive, attacking Defense, I can endure that.

xoxo~
gaz
expecting a savage and oft-toasted Defense.
Posts: 5,908
Gaz has disabled reputation
 
Old 03-15-2001, 08:27 PM   #6
Logical Logical is offline
Screw U if U can't take a joke
 
Logical's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $5000
Hey Gaz,

On Lockett, look no further than our receivers coach to see why Lockett can be a great 3rd receiver. Charlie Joiner, all they ever said about him was that he lacked the strength, speed, and size to be a great receiver. You might want to look up the number of receptions and yards that man has.
Posts: 31,579
Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.
 
Old 03-15-2001, 08:33 PM   #7
1punkyQB 1punkyQB is offline
Starter
 

Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Virginia
Casino cash: $5000
Carl quietly made a couple of solid moves. P and C aren't exactly sexy positions, but those guys should help us win in the next few years. Peter King's latest article makes me a little more curious about Beuerlein, as he doesn't carry the health risks of Aikman, has actually had Pro Bowl caliber seasons unlike Green, and would require less of our draft than TG(if SB gets released, all the better). Every team has holes nowadays, even last year's Ravens, so with a little luck we're back in the postseason. Our strengths: O (playmakers at last to go with a good OL), pretty good front seven, solid safeties, give us a good foundation. If we can just fill those pesky holes at QB and RB--stop-gap will do for one, hopefully a youngster at RB through the draft--there's reason for optimism. A corner's a necessity also, obviously.

[Edited by 1punkyQB on 03-15-2001 at 09:42 PM]
Posts: 171
1punkyQB is a favorite in the douche of the year contest.1punkyQB is a favorite in the douche of the year contest.
 
Old 03-15-2001, 08:37 PM   #8
Otter Otter is offline
holding a blood clot at birth
 
Otter's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Durango, CO
Casino cash: $5280
I don't have too much too add to the thorough job Gaz and Keg did but I do have a strong suspicion that we draft a RB with the number 12 this year.

My reasoning you ask:

I think to a point, Carl feels he's losing the fans of KC. We’re beginning to doubt his judgement and his ability to take the Chiefs to the super bowl, and rightfully so I might add. Drafting a feature RB would be the greatest PR move Carl could make right now. It would give the fans hope for the future and something to talk about through what looks to be another season of mediocrity.

Voila, instant credibility.

The above compounded by the fact that our draft position gives us the ability to get a stud RB and we’re desperately in need of one also boosts my confidence in drafting an RB first round.

I’m not saying this is the best move we can make but I think it’s the one that’s going to be made to please the masses.
__________________
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not” - Thomas Jefferson, 1801.
Posts: 13,052
Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
 
Old 03-15-2001, 08:45 PM   #9
keg in kc keg in kc is offline
oxymoron
 
keg in kc's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: OP/KC/Whatever
Casino cash: $5025
I'd agree with you Otter except at this point in time I don't think we'll be picking at #12 (I think we'll have Green, hopefully getting the #20 pick) and even if we do there won't be a first-round calibre RB left to draft. I think McAlister, Tomlinson and Bennett will all be gone in the first 11 picks.

Punky, I completely agree with your statements about the P and C, although I am very slightly worried about how our punter will perform with every game outdoors.

I think we're going to sign Priest Holmes to cover RB because of our draft position, but, on the other hand, I wouldn't mind very much if some of our FA money went toward some defensive guys.
Posts: 51,368
keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.keg in kc is obviously part of the inner Circle.
 
Old 03-16-2001, 07:41 AM   #10
Gaz Gaz is offline
Defense Homer
 
Gaz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Rancho Gaz
Casino cash: $5100
Otter-

If we don't get a HB in FA, you are probably right. Although I think Seymour [DT] or Hutchinson [OG] would provide more bang for our buck, linemen do not generate excitement [well, the Chaplain and I were pretty pumped when Tait fell into our laps, but among the general horde, linemen are not sexy].

Carl needs some good, sexy PR, particularly after the Grbac/Green fiasco. A stud HB like Bennett is sexy. Picking him would calm some of the more frantic Chiefs fans, even though it is not the most efficient use of the pick, IMO.

That is the reason I hope we pick up Holmes in FA. I would be perfectly content with Richardson as the featured back, but Carl needs that blockbuster pick. If we get Holmes in FA, that will distract the HB Homers and allow Carl to draft a lineman at #12.

xoxo~
gaz
willing to take Holmes in order to get Seymour or Hutchinson.
Posts: 5,908
Gaz has disabled reputation
 
Old 03-16-2001, 07:45 AM   #11
KCTitus KCTitus is offline
Archivist
 
KCTitus's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Ethernet
Casino cash: $5330
Gaz: I shudder to think of wasting another #1 on a lineman that could be aptly filled with a #3-7 pick.

Linemen can be had in the later rounds. The same cannot be said for a playmaker at a skill position.

Yes, we need DT's and OG, but you want to talk about a waste of a #1, that's it.
Posts: 23,575
KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.
 
Old 03-16-2001, 07:51 AM   #12
Gaz Gaz is offline
Defense Homer
 
Gaz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Rancho Gaz
Casino cash: $5100
Kyle-

Sadly, the Green deal is not yet ready to go on the cart.

As draft day approaches, the pressure on the Rams increases. They need to cut some players to make room for FAs to improve their D.

The pressure on the Chiefs also increases as we get closer and closer to the draft without a starting QB [sorry, Todd, I am willing to give you a chance, but the vast majority of the R&G horde are not]. The sickening thing is that Carl is generating the pressure. He should seriously court and sign a FA QB. That relieves the urgent need for a QB in R&G.

Any deal with the Rams works to our advantage if we are no longer under pressure to make the deal. Even if we signed a goober QB and vast numbers of the tribe were howling in despair over the choice, it would still change the focus from "who is our QB?" to "how badly do we want to upgrade the position?" That is a far superior bargaining position.

There is still a very good chance of a Green deal. And the chances improve the longer Carl fails to examine other possibilities. I approved of his stand when the Rams made their ridiculous demand, but I am becoming disenchanted with his lack of action to improve his bargaining position.

xoxo~
gaz
has the bubbly chilled, but is not popping the cork yet.
Posts: 5,908
Gaz has disabled reputation
 
Old 03-16-2001, 07:59 AM   #13
Gaz Gaz is offline
Defense Homer
 
Gaz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Rancho Gaz
Casino cash: $5100
KCTitus-

Shudder away, my friend.

There is no comparison between Hutchinson and any Guard you might pick up in the later Rounds. There is no comparison between Seymour and any DT you might pick up in the later Rounds.

It is exactly that myopic view of "playmaker" that makes me sigh. I do not consider it a "waste" to get the best Guard to hit the draft for years. A guy who could be a rock in our OL for seasons to come and open holes for the sexy "playmaker" HB you covet.

I prefer Hutchinson and Henry to Gandy and Bennett any day.

xoxo~
gaz
not buying into the HB Homer party line.
Posts: 5,908
Gaz has disabled reputation
 
Old 03-16-2001, 08:08 AM   #14
KCTitus KCTitus is offline
Archivist
 
KCTitus's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Ethernet
Casino cash: $5330
Gaz: If you re-read my post, you wont find the words "HB" or "Runningback" anywhere in that post. What you will find is 'playmaker' and 'skill position' which could be one of 3 or 4 positions on the team.

Looking into the past, you may want to note that Shields, was not a #12 pick or even a first round pick and I believe, he's turned out ok. You may also note that Szott was not a #12 pick or even a first round pick and I believe he also turned out ok.

Those two along with Grunhard made the interior line a 'rock in our OL for seasons to come'.

KC HAD an awesome OL, but their failures to draft playmakers in SKILL positions proved one thing--An awesome OL will not win you the SB or even a playoff game for that matter.
Posts: 23,575
KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.KCTitus would the whole thing.
 
Old 03-16-2001, 08:32 AM   #15
Gaz Gaz is offline
Defense Homer
 
Gaz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Rancho Gaz
Casino cash: $5100
KCTitus-

If you'll re-read my post, you'll see that I did not put any words in your mouth. I used a HB "playmaker" in my example because that is where I expect Carl to use that #12 pick. I did not use Vick as an example because there are a number of folks who think Vick is a NFL bust waiting to happen, so that would not have been a good example. And since we do not need a WR desperately, that "playmaker" example also would not have been useful.

Look into the past, yourself. What Round was Davis drafted? That sword cuts both ways bud.

And I beg to differ with your contention that failure to draft "playmakers" led to our destruction in the playoffs. IMO, our playoff failures were due primarily to Marty's über-conservative style in the post-season. If your contention were correct, we would not have reached the playoffs in the first place. I disagree with your "proof."

I believe that the team starts with the linemen. Allow me to post another example. Again, I will use HB because that is where our lack of "playmaker" talent has been most striking and consistent. I would rather have a great OL and mediocre talent in the backfield than a great HB and a mediocre line. I prefer Tait, Szott, Grunhard, Shields and Riley with Richardson to the nameless Cincinnatti OL and Dillon.

xoxo~
gaz
believes "playmakers" are guys who make plays.
Posts: 5,908
Gaz has disabled reputation
 
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is Off
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.