Super Bowl ???

[Logical]

Let's say realistically we are able to sign 1 top CB, 1 decent LB, and one other defensive player. Lets say we draft a DE in the first round and a true CB in the 2nd round do you realistically believe we could improve our defense enough to be a Super Bowl team?

[tk13]

Why not? This is the NFL.

[|Zach|]

With all those qualifiers? Absolutley.

[DaWolf]

I think it is VERY possible that with the right moves, we could take a quantum leap defensively. Teams in the past have proven it. Carolina one year went from 31 to 1. It does not take multiple years if done right. If Gun can fit his system to the players he has and the players he will acquire, then it can be done.

The key though is staying ahead of the game offensively. I think to truly cause a team like New England or Pittsburgh problems, we are going to have to find another wideout to compliment Tony G and take the pressure off of him. Because as much as we could improve defensively, there is just no way we are going to become a dominant defense. We will need to continue to score to win games, so we have to make sure the O stays ahead of the curve too...

[teedubya]

I think it is VERY possible that with the right moves, we could take a quantum leap defensively. Teams in the past have proven it. Carolina one year went from 31 to 1. It does not take multiple years if done right. If Gun can fit his system to the players he has and the players he will acquire, then it can be done.

The key though is staying ahead of the game offensively. I think to truly cause a team like New England or Pittsburgh problems, we are going to have to find another wideout to compliment Tony G and take the pressure off of him. Because as much as we could improve defensively, there is just no way we are going to become a dominant defense. We will need to continue to score to win games, so we have to make sure the O stays ahead of the curve too...

Carolina went from 31 to 2. NE was #1... but regardless, I think if we do make these right moves, and our keeping the injury bug away... I say yes. We can finally win a playoff game at home.

[keg in kc]

Because as much as we could improve defensively, there is just no way we are going to become a dominant defense. We will need to continue to score to win games, so we have to make sure the O stays ahead of the curve too...I agree but I'd say it differently. I think we can even become dominant, but to do that, it's going to require improvement in play and consistency on both sides of the ball. If the defense improves, even drastically, but the offense slides even an inch, we won't make it. This isn't an either/or proposition, which is why I've never been in favor of trading offensive talent for defensive upgrades; we are an offensively-oriented team. Period. That isn't going to change short of a complete overhaul of personnel, coaches and philosophy. We are what we are, and what that means is that we must continue to have a dominant offense and the defense must be improved enough to win games. For that reason, I don't fall into the "defense, defense, defense" camp in terms of offseason moves. That doesn't mean I don't think we need to focus on the D. We obviously do. But completely ignoring the offense would be a mistake I think. If upgrades are available and they don't break the bank, then I say go for it. Just make sure it doesn't cost too much in terms of fixing the larger problem.

Now, that said, I reiterate that I think it's possible for the defense to improve drastically. Possible. Whether it's probable is another matter. But often the second year in a system brings with it a natural progression or improvement for the incumbent players (although not always...see Robinson...). Add to that possible personnel upgrades, both veteran and young, and there's a very real chance at better things. But only a chance. There are no guarantees in life short of it ending.

It really could go either way. Neither a top-5 or bottom-5 unit would surprise me in 2005. I hope it's not the latter.

But, to answer the original question, I certainly think it's possible to improve the defense enough to compete for a superbowl.

[trndobrd]

I could see it happening, but we are going to need a mini-Ditka on defense.

[mikey23545]

I agree but I'd say it differently. I think we can even become dominant, but to do that, it's going to require improvement in play and consistency on both sides of the ball. If the defense improves, even drastically, but the offense slides even an inch, we won't make it. This isn't an either/or proposition, which is why I've never been in favor of trading offensive talent for defensive upgrades; we are an offensively-oriented team. Period. That isn't going to change short of a complete overhaul of personnel, coaches and philosophy. We are what we are, and what that means is that we must continue to have a dominant offense and the defense must be improved enough to win games. For that reason, I don't fall into the "defense, defense, defense" camp in terms of offseason moves. That doesn't mean I don't think we need to focus on the D. We obviously do. But completely ignoring the offense would be a mistake I think. If upgrades are available and they don't break the bank, then I say go for it. Just make sure it doesn't cost too much in terms of fixing the larger problem.

Now, that said, I reiterate that I think it's possible for the defense to improve drastically. Possible. Whether it's probable is another matter. But often the second year in a system brings with it a natural progression or improvement for the incumbent players (although not always...see Robinson...). Add to that possible personnel upgrades, both veteran and young, and there's a very real chance at better things. But only a chance. There are no guarantees in life short of it ending.

It really could go either way. Neither a top-5 or bottom-5 unit would surprise me in 2005. I hope it's not the latter.

But, to answer the original question, I certainly think it's possible to improve the defense enough to compete for a superbowl.

What he said.

[Manila-Chief]

"Do you realistically believe we can improve our defense enough to win a Super Bowl"

The key word is "realistically" ... I'm hoping Kingless can bring in 3 quality defensive FA and draft D wisely ... but to say he will "realistically" do that ... just don't buy it. I keep hoping....

[Saulbadguy]

We just need a decent defense to be a contender for the Super Bowl.

[Amnorix]

Yes.

1. The difference between best and worst in the NFL has never been smaller.

2. There are VERY few truly well-balanced teams in the NFL. Most good teams are really dominant on one side of the ball, and average (if that) on the other. If KC improves its defense substantially, then you'd automatically move into "very good team" standing, since your O is already dominant.

3. Injuries are the great equalizer. A team or two that maybe "should" be better than you might suffer injuries that move them out of the picture.

The AFC is very tough, no doubt about it, but things are constantly in flux, and you guys could definitely be in the hunt. The Pats have been top dog for a little while now, but there are many issues as they head into the new season, and who knows whether they'll stay hungry, etc.

[HC_Chief]

I have zero faith in this coaching staff and front office.
No, even with improved personnel, the dumbf*cks in charge would blow it.

[milkman]

I think it's possible, but have no confidence that Carl and DickWad will make the right decisions.

[Eleazar]

I voted 'no problem'

[Phobia]

I voted No Problem.

[Chiefnj]

As long as the offense doesn't slip.

[Soupnazi]

That depends. How tough is our schedule?

-Dick Vermeil

[ROYC75]

Let's say realistically we are able to sign 1 top CB, 1 decent LB, and one other defensive player. Lets say we draft a DE in the first round and a true CB in the 2nd round do you realistically believe we could improve our defense enough to be a Super Bowl team?


OK, you said realistically ........... YES.


With Carl in charge.....................NO.


Has little faith at this time, they are going to have to win this old bird over again.

[Logical]

BB as a whole is pretty optimistic, suprisingly so would I be if all those conditions were met. Course like Roy said with Carl in charge it is hard to believe it could happen.

[keg in kc]

BB as a whole is pretty optimisticAcknowledging that something *can* happen is not optimism.

I mean, I could bump into a supermodel in an airport and she could find me irresistable...

...but I'm not optimistic.

[Logical]

Acknowledging that something *can* happen is not optimism.

I mean, I could bump into a supermodel in an airport and she could find me irresistable...

...but I'm not optimistic.That is a good point Keg. I hope your supermodel scenario plays out.;)

[Braincase]

Can & will are two different things. I believe we can. I don't think Carl will. I'm a pessimist.

[Mr. Laz]

can??

signs point to yes


will??

outlook not so good


http://8ball.federated.com/8side.jpg

[bogie]

I voted yes. I hope I'm right.