What I learned this weekend

[lostcause]

a. Chiefs should have drafted Sanchez - who is now 1-0

b. We should have traded our 2011 1st rounder for Seymour - 2 sacks already tonight

c. Kyle Orton is the second coming of John Elway - 1 4th Qtr comeback in 1 start in Denver

d. The Broncos raped Denver in their trade because Cutler (4 picks) is atrocious and Orton is next to god (see second coming of Elway at c above).

e. The Chiefs can still lose me money when I bet on them getting DD points after they led midway through the 4th quarter. (See SD Chargers game last year)

[Mr. Arrowhead]

the broncos raped denver? Interesting that they have talent to rape themselves

[chiefzilla1501]

a. Chiefs should have drafted Sanchez - who is now 1-0

b. We should have traded our 2011 1st rounder for Seymour - 2 sacks already tonight

c. Kyle Orton is the second coming of John Elway - 1 4th Qtr comeback in 1 start in Denver

d. The Broncos raped Denver in their trade because Cutler (4 picks) is atrocious and Orton is next to god (see second coming of Elway at c above).

e. The Chiefs can still lose me money when I bet on them getting DD points after they led midway through the 4th quarter. (See SD Chargers game last year)

Is this multiple choice? Because E is the only right answer and A we don't know anything about until we see Cassel play.

[luv]

I'm trying to get past the part where you say Orton is the second coming.






































Still trying.

[Bearcat]

Dupe.

Pretty funny, too. LMAO

[jaa1025]

a. Chiefs should have drafted Sanchez - who is now 1-0

b. We should have traded our 2011 1st rounder for Seymour - 2 sacks already tonight

c. Kyle Orton is the second coming of John Elway - 1 4th Qtr comeback in 1 start in Denver

d. The Broncos raped Denver in their trade because Cutler (4 picks) is atrocious and Orton is next to god (see second coming of Elway at c above).

e. The Chiefs can still lose me money when I bet on them getting DD points after they led midway through the 4th quarter. (See SD Chargers game last year)

Serious or joke post because if thats what you learned then you might want to start paying attention a little better.

A) No....We had Cassell and Sanchez played good for a rookie but Im fine with a 2nd rounder for what we have.
B) Hell no...the guy is going to turn 30 next year and hasn't played a full season for the last few years. Way too many holes to fill.
C) are you freaking kidding me? That guy is the worst starter in football.
D) Still smoking crack?
E) Never bet on the team that you follow.

[lostcause]

i forget to always preface dry sarcasm by saying dry sarcasm in the op. my bad.

[Easy 6]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/spz8_rpE0e0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/spz8_rpE0e0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[LaChapelle]

I know your mother, she was dry too.

[Bearcat]

i forget to always preface dry sarcasm by saying dry sarcasm in the op. my bad.

I like to think of all idiotic posts as sarcastic, because if they're not, it means Chiefs fans are the dumbest, most overreacting fans in the NFL..... that said, I don't see how anyone could have gotten past c still thinking you were being serious.

[lostcause]

I know your mother, she was dry too.

you're stupid.

[Easy 6]

Sarcasm noted.

But any time is a good time for Benny Hill :D.

[LaChapelle]

I know your mother, she was dry too.

and cold.

[JD10367]

Going to turn this thread serious, since there are a bunch of threads on the main page which actually touch on my point and I'm too lazy to dupe-post in all of 'em....

It's very hard to tell what's "for real" when it's only Week One. What we've seen might be true indications of a team, or simply because it's, well, the first week. Players are shaking off the rust, settling into their roles. In '04 the Bills blew out New England; didn't seem to indicate how that season would go. In '07, the Giants didn't look so hot for half a year; it ended okay for them.

At first glance, it looks like the "beasts" might not be so good, and the "pushovers" better than expected. Although three lost and the fourth SHOULD have, the Chiefs, Raiders, Bills, and Broncos all put up a good fight, much better than anyone expected. On the other side of the ball, the Ravens, Chargers, and Patriots didn't look so hot. Does this mean KC, Buffalo, Oakland, and Denver are all playoff-bound? Probably not. And it probably doesn't mean that Baltimore, San Diego, and New England will have losing records.

We really can't judge things off one game. It's best to judge things in four-game sets. The Chiefs gave up a crapload of yards and points to Baltimore. Is that because Baltimore's O will be unstoppable, or is it because the Chiefs' D sucks ass? Well, let's revisit that after the next three games. :shrug:

I know it sounds like fence-sitting but, really, one week does not make a basis for judging how a team will play, and how a team will end up. What you can take, as a more accurate indicator, is attitude, and flashes from certain players. But even that's not always concrete (e.g. that Buffalo/NE game in '04, where the Bills looked unstoppable and Brady looked like crap).

This week's Oakland/KC tilt looks like a good one. But whichever team wins, be it by 1 or by 40, doesn't really mean that team is that much better or worse. It's a long year.

[BigRichard]

Going to turn this thread serious, since there are a bunch of threads on the main page which actually touch on my point and I'm too lazy to dupe-post in all of 'em....

It's very hard to tell what's "for real" when it's only Week One. What we've seen might be true indications of a team, or simply because it's, well, the first week. Players are shaking off the rust, settling into their roles. In '04 the Bills blew out New England; didn't seem to indicate how that season would go. In '07, the Giants didn't look so hot for half a year; it ended okay for them.

At first glance, it looks like the "beasts" might not be so good, and the "pushovers" better than expected. Although three lost and the fourth SHOULD have, the Chiefs, Raiders, Bills, and Broncos all put up a good fight, much better than anyone expected. On the other side of the ball, the Ravens, Chargers, and Patriots didn't look so hot. Does this mean KC, Buffalo, Oakland, and Denver are all playoff-bound? Probably not. And it probably doesn't mean that Baltimore, San Diego, and New England will have losing records.

We really can't judge things off one game. It's best to judge things in four-game sets. The Chiefs gave up a crapload of yards and points to Baltimore. Is that because Baltimore's O will be unstoppable, or is it because the Chiefs' D sucks ass? Well, let's revisit that after the next three games. :shrug:

I know it sounds like fence-sitting but, really, one week does not make a basis for judging how a team will play, and how a team will end up. What you can take, as a more accurate indicator, is attitude, and flashes from certain players. But even that's not always concrete (e.g. that Buffalo/NE game in '04, where the Bills looked unstoppable and Brady looked like crap).

This week's Oakland/KC tilt looks like a good one. But whichever team wins, be it by 1 or by 40, doesn't really mean that team is that much better or worse. It's a long year.

You really think the Ravens didn't look good? I thought they looked really good. There was a couple of plays that kept the Chiefs in that game. They were not necessarily fluke plays but they were not plays you can count on each game. They were the type of plays that makes a good team beat great teams. And yet we still managed to lose.

From what I saw the Chiefs are really really bad. Probably worse then last year. I hope I am wrong. But I don't think the Ravens looked bad. Their D was good and there offense looked like it had improved ten fold.

[InChiefsHeaven]

THe only thing I really disagree about your post is the idea that the Ravens didn't look so hot...500+ yards of offense against any team is impressive.

[luv]

Just because the Chiefs had anyone worried for awhile is no reason for them to worry the remainder of the season.

And this statement isn't as sarcastic as it would have been meant if I had said it a week ago.

[Skip Towne]

THe only thing I really disagree about your post is the idea that the Ravens didn't look so hot...500+ yards of offense against any team is impressive.

If Flacco was the least bit accurate they'd have had 700 yards.

[InChiefsHeaven]

If Flacco was the least bit accurate they'd have had 700 yards.

Still. 500 yards does not equal "not so hot".

[old_geezer]

You really think the Ravens didn't look good? I thought they looked really good. There was a couple of plays that kept the Chiefs in that game. They were not necessarily fluke plays but they were not plays you can count on each game. They were the type of plays that makes a good team beat great teams. And yet we still managed to lose.

From what I saw the Chiefs are really really bad. Probably worse then last year. I hope I am wrong. But I don't think the Ravens looked bad. Their D was good and there offense looked like it had improved ten fold.


We were starting Brodie croyle for God's sake. If we are stuck with Croyle and Thigpen this year then, yea, we're screwed. But I have hopes for Cassell and I saw a team that played hard and fought to the end. I also saw a defense still trying to find itself and without it's best player (Flowers). Our talent is lacking but I like the direction we seem to be going. We're not playoff contenders this year but I'll take this years' team over last years' team any day.

[BigRichard]

We were starting Brodie croyle for God's sake. If we are stuck with Croyle and Thigpen this year then, yea, we're screwed. But I have hopes for Cassell and I saw a team that played hard and fought to the end. I also saw a defense still trying to find itself and without it's best player (Flowers). Our talent is lacking but I like the direction we seem to be going. We're not playoff contenders this year but I'll take this years' team over last years' team any day.

I thought Croyle played pretty well actually. I don't think that game goes any better if Cassel is running the show. The D might have looked a little better with Flowers but not that much better. We are severly lacking in talent. I am not necessarily blaming anyone besides past regimes but the fact still remains they looked horrible.

[Demonpenz]

I watched mad men, and I learned in the 50's you could put plastic sacks over kids's heads, you could slap other kids faces if they were acting up and you knew the father, woman didn't mean shit and were made just to grope, and that my nephew's aunt is dating the actor that is don draper

[Bearcat]

Going to turn this thread serious, since there are a bunch of threads on the main page which actually touch on my point and I'm too lazy to dupe-post in all of 'em....

It's very hard to tell what's "for real" when it's only Week One. What we've seen might be true indications of a team, or simply because it's, well, the first week. Players are shaking off the rust, settling into their roles. In '04 the Bills blew out New England; didn't seem to indicate how that season would go. In '07, the Giants didn't look so hot for half a year; it ended okay for them.

At first glance, it looks like the "beasts" might not be so good, and the "pushovers" better than expected. Although three lost and the fourth SHOULD have, the Chiefs, Raiders, Bills, and Broncos all put up a good fight, much better than anyone expected. On the other side of the ball, the Ravens, Chargers, and Patriots didn't look so hot. Does this mean KC, Buffalo, Oakland, and Denver are all playoff-bound? Probably not. And it probably doesn't mean that Baltimore, San Diego, and New England will have losing records.

We really can't judge things off one game. It's best to judge things in four-game sets. The Chiefs gave up a crapload of yards and points to Baltimore. Is that because Baltimore's O will be unstoppable, or is it because the Chiefs' D sucks ass? Well, let's revisit that after the next three games. :shrug:

I know it sounds like fence-sitting but, really, one week does not make a basis for judging how a team will play, and how a team will end up. What you can take, as a more accurate indicator, is attitude, and flashes from certain players. But even that's not always concrete (e.g. that Buffalo/NE game in '04, where the Bills looked unstoppable and Brady looked like crap).

This week's Oakland/KC tilt looks like a good one. But whichever team wins, be it by 1 or by 40, doesn't really mean that team is that much better or worse. It's a long year.

You're exactly right, but it's funny that any of this even has to be said, and that it's said every year. I guess it comes with the territory, since there are so many 'experts' that want to be the first to analyze every little thing and make a story out of anything that will get people talking... and the internet makes it so easy for anyone to post their drivel about how one loss is the end of the world or how the Raiders are going to win the AFC West because they scored first in their opener.

:doh!:

[Baby Lee]

I watched mad men, and I learned in the 50's you could put plastic sacks over kids's heads, you could slap other kids faces if they were acting up and you knew the father, woman didn't mean shit and were made just to grope, and that my nephew's aunt is dating the actor that is don draper

Wait!! You're related to

http://l.yimg.com/l/tv/us/img/site/83/74/0000038374_20070312175805.jpg

So, just how solid an item are they? [Starts furiously working out]

[EyePod]

Wow, I have now learned that you are very easily swayed. It was 1 week of football, you can't learn everything in the 1st week.

a. Sanchez wouldn't have been good behind our line
b. We have way too many picks invested in our d-line. I think the more observant fan would say that we should have invested a pick in a RT.
c. Kyle Orton was playing the Bengals. I could put up a 4th quarter comeback against the Bengals.
d. Cutler did have a bad game. I don't think you can say that he's that horrible yet. Wait until a few more games.
e. I don't bet on football because you're going to lose money in the end. I learned this by losing money while betting on football. The only time I broke even was when I was in a league long pick em league, but the problem was that you had to put in so much effort and learn about every team (I don't play FF either if you were wondering), especially because there was money involved.

So I guess in conclusion, wait until mid season and then revisit your current statements please.

[Halfcan]

the Cassel trade looks very bad right now-but if he comes out and kicks the shit out of the Faders this weekend-lots of folks will shut up for at least a week about Sanchez.

[Iowanian]

the broncos raped denver? Interesting that they have talent to rape themselves

It sounds like they've listened better than I thought. I've been encouraging Denver to GFthemselves for a decade now.

[MahiMike]

I learned it's only week 1 of 17.

[bevischief]

I watched mad men, and I learned in the 50's you could put plastic sacks over kids's heads, you could slap other kids faces if they were acting up and you knew the father, woman didn't mean shit and were made just to grope, and that my nephew's aunt is dating the actor that is don draper

WTF?

ROFL