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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Rain Man]

I know that morale is low right now, but truthfully, this is a talented team ending the season. The key will be whether they all come back, and I think that most or all of them will.

1. We've got a very strong offensive backfield.
2. We've got a very strong offensive line.
3. We still have a top-notch tight end.
4. Our kick returner is 10th all-time in scores.
5. We've got two good CBs.
6. We've got a couple of good young LBs.
7. We've got a good pass-rushing end.

I know I'll be ridiculed for saying this, but if DV comes back and we've got continuity there, and if we can get two good players on the d-line, this team will scare people.

[cdcox]

Your other poll made me realize how devoid of quality depth this team is. I think that is another glaring weakness that really shakes my confidence in the duct-tape-and-chicken-wire approach to holding this team together for yet one more try.