What if?

[dtrain]

What if the Chiefs had traded for Moss? Given up our first and 4th round picks and one of our safeties. Who would have blown a gasket and who would be doing back flips of joy?

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with it if there was some kind of plan to get draft picks back or sign 3-4 good free agents.

[BigChiefFan]

I'll never fault a team for trying, the Raiders included.

[Phobia]

My head would have exploded. After 4 years of preaching profile and leading the league in offense, throwing that kind of crap away on offense would be senseless.

[patteeu]

My guess is that many of the people who are currently having a hissy fit over Moss going to the Raiders (because presumably this is going to be a horrible thing for the Chiefs) would also be having a hissy fit if the Chiefs had made a similar trade.

Last season, Oakland's defense was as bad or worse than the Chiefs.

Total Defense
* Oakland 30th
* KC 31st

Scoring Defense
* KC 29th
* Oakland 31st

In addition to that, they had an offensive problem. They were dramatically one dimensional. But it wasn't their pass offense that was the problem, it was a lack of a running game.

Pass Offense
* KC 4th
* Oakland 8th

Rush Offense
* KC 5th
* Oakland 32nd

Now I'm not saying that adding a great wide receiver won't help improve the Raiders, but by trading away the 7th overall pick and a solid contributor on defense (former 1st round pick, Napolean Harris) AND by spending a portion of their offseason budget resigning Jerry Porter, they are reducing the resources available for retooling their defense and finding a quality RB.

By a show of hands, how many here would be howling if the Chiefs traded away Ryan Sims or Eric Warfield (or even Jared Allen) and their 15th overall pick for any WR (even one as good as Moss)? For those people raising their hands: if it's bad for the Chiefs, why isn't it bad for the Raiders?

[whoman69]

The Raiders just compounded the defensive inadequacies, and still have done nothing to make their offense any less one dimensional. The Vikings made out better in this deal.

[CosmicPal]

You don't fix what's not broken. The Chiefs offense doesn't need Randy Moss. Yes, it may need a productive receiver, but it still wouldn't change the fact that our defense still needs help and giving up two draft picks would severely hurt any chances at adding considerable upgrades on the defensive side of the ball.

Besides, Moss wouldn't be happy in KC. He wouldn't get the limelight like he will in Oakland. He would only be a frustrated, whiny azz, I'll-do-whatever-I-damn-well-please kind of player.

[Barret]

Silly thought, in this years draft which RB looks to fit the Raiders profile and might just be there in a later round for them to pick up??

What if.......the raiders pick up Maurice Clarrett in the 4th or 5th round where a lot of people are saying he might go?

Would that assist in their running game? Is their running game really more affected by the O-line or the quality of their running backs to find the hole??

[Kyle401]

You don't fix what's not broken. The Chiefs offense doesn't need Randy Moss. Yes, it may need a productive receiver....

I'm not sure why so many people seem to think that the Chiefs need a WR. Our passing offense has been productive basically since T. Green took over throwing the ball. TGonz is basically our #1 WR from the TE position. Kennison has turned out to be a pretty good possession reciever who can still get deep on occasion. Parker looks to be developing as a deep threat. Horn is a good utility guy/special teamer and Hall can fill in when needed. We have 2 RB's who can catch the ball out of the backfield, and Boerigter and Wilson should be returing in 2005.

Sure a WR would be nice but, I would put it pretty far down on the list of needs. To me adding a WR is more of a luxury than a need. I'd say CB, LB (FA), CB, LB, S, then WR (draft).

[tomahawk kid]

If "if's" and "but's" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

[CosmicPal]

I'm not sure why so many people seem to think that the Chiefs need a WR. Our passing offense has been productive basically since T. Green took over throwing the ball. TGonz is basically our #1 WR from the TE position. Kennison has turned out to be a pretty good possession reciever who can still get deep on occasion. Parker looks to be developing as a deep threat. Horn is a good utility guy/special teamer and Hall can fill in when needed. We have 2 RB's who can catch the ball out of the backfield, and Boerigter and Wilson should be returing in 2005.

Sure a WR would be nice but, I would put it pretty far down on the list of needs. To me adding a WR is more of a luxury than a need. I'd say CB, LB (FA), CB, LB, S, then WR (draft).

First of all, read the rest of the orginal post. The emphasis was solely on the need for Moss as a Chief- not another WR. Read how I said getting Moss would severely hurt our chances at improving our defense which is our biggest need.

But, while we are on the subject of WR needs- I do agree it's down the list of needs, but you cannot expect to run an offense for too long when your primary receiver is a TE and the next in line is your RB coming out of the backfield. Kennison, no matter how productive he is- does not command double-teams.

If you look at what the Denver defense did to Gonzalez the first game between the two- they shut him down and made him obsolete. Also, for some far-out reason- KC didn't even throw a pass to Holmes coming out of the backfield for first few games- and it slowed down the offense. Therefore, our offense wasn't as productive or as efficient as it was when TG and Priest were getting the ball. Morton just wasn't productive enough, and Parker? How can you say Parker will be any better- nobody knows how he'll pan out.

[Dave Lane]

What if the Chiefs had traded for Moss? Given up our first and 4th round picks and one of our safeties. Who would have blown a gasket and who would be doing back flips of joy?

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with it if there was some kind of plan to get draft picks back or sign 3-4 good free agents.

I'd be pissed (except for the giving up a safety part)

Dave

[Kyle401]

First of all, read the rest of the orginal post. The emphasis was solely on the need for Moss as a Chief- not another WR. Read how I said getting Moss would severely hurt our chances at improving our defense which is our biggest need.

But, while we are on the subject of WR needs- I do agree it's down the list of needs, but you cannot expect to run an offense for too long when your primary receiver is a TE and the next in line is your RB coming out of the backfield. Kennison, no matter how productive he is- does not command double-teams.

If you look at what the Denver defense did to Gonzalez the first game between the two- they shut him down and made him obsolete. Also, for some far-out reason- KC didn't even throw a pass to Holmes coming out of the backfield for first few games- and it slowed down the offense. Therefore, our offense wasn't as productive or as efficient as it was when TG and Priest were getting the ball. Morton just wasn't productive enough, and Parker? How can you say Parker will be any better- nobody knows how he'll pan out.

Yeah I know that you said Moss would be a bad pickup for us, and I agree. I just took off on a little bit of a tangent from the section of your post that I quoted previously about needing a WR. I guess I've been looking at too many Mocks that have us taking a WR in the 1st and, I'm starting to have nightmares about Carl actually doing it.

On the subject of the passing game last year. Holmes did not want to catch as many passes this year because he wanted to make a run at the single season rushing record so he wanted to limit his receptions to keep his touches down. The first 2 games were a little slow as you mentioned but, after that they never had less than 200 yds and many games over 300.

[patteeu]

Yeah I know that you said Moss would be a bad pickup for us, and I agree. I just took off on a little bit of a tangent from the section of your post that I quoted previously about needing a WR. I guess I've been looking at too many Mocks that have us taking a WR in the 1st and, I'm starting to have nightmares about Carl actually doing it.

On the subject of the passing game last year. Holmes did not want to catch as many passes this year because he wanted to make a run at the single season rushing record so he wanted to limit his receptions to keep his touches down. The first 2 games were a little slow as you mentioned but, after that they never had less than 200 yds and many games over 300.

I wouldn't mind a WR in the first if (a) the Chiefs addressed immediate defensive needs through free agency and (b) the WR in question was a true playmaker rather a guy with a lot of potential that might someday become a playmaker.*

Whatever the Chiefs do in the 1st round this year, they need to have a balanced draft in order to get younger on offense before the aging vets fall off the cliff or retire.

*Unfortunately, the hard part is figuring out if conditions (a) and (b) are met.