ANYONE concerned about our "D"?

[Mr. Kotter]

At the risk of sounding like "Scrooge," I'm wondering what others think about this... :huh:

Understand that I am convinced the Chiefs will go no worse than 13-3, so I'm still on board...but with the Defense giving up 360 yds per game, that can't go on if we intend to do anything in the playoffs. :eek:

I realize we've played tougher teams (relatively speaking,) and some GREAT RBs. I realize our pass defense has given up some yardage when other teams were desperate--but Favre and Plummer looked great against us. I also understand that they have forced a lot of turnovers, and been opportunistic. All that said, I'm still wondering whether this will come back to bite us in the end... :(

I guess, as good as the Special Teams seem to be, and as balanced as the Offense is, I can't help but hope the Defense gels a bit more in the next month or so...otherwise it could kill us in January. :grr:

On the OTHER hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Chiefs run the table....and waltz into the Houston at the end of January... :drool: :D

[Dinny Bossa Nova]

Keep %$&#@@&&&*^ing doubting Greg Robinson!!!!!

Dinny

[Mr. Kotter]

Keep %$&#@@&&&*^ing doubting Greg Robinson!!!!!

Dinny

ROFL

My point EXACTLY.... :huh:

:banghead:

[Rausch]

Keep %$&#@@&&&*^ing doubting Greg Robinson!!!!!

Dinny

I don't doubt him at all....






I'm downright convinced he's what's still holding this D back.....

[RealSNR]

We're not getting pressure like we used to... probably because we've been facing some pretty tough O-lines the past 3 games.

Also, with the continuous stalling on offense, the D is on the field WAAAAAY too f*cking long.

[TRR]

Not overly concerned. Robinson has installed that bend but don't break tactic in KC. We give up a lot of yards, but lead the league in turnovers if I'm not mistaken. With our offense as dangerous as it is, I don't mind the strategy. We can go 80 yards in under a minute with our O. Our defense needs to continue getting turnovers, and when getting turnovers, we have been capitalizing on them with big returns. We need to get better on D, no question. But we are getting more pressure than last season, and are forcing TO's. There is definitely room for improvement.

[DenverChief]

GB 4thQ Drives
Punt
INT
Punt
FG

I know we were already down but our "D" stiffened and only gave up 3 points in the 4th

[dtrain]

We need a middle linebacker who can consistantly stuff the run and cover a little better to the sidelines.

[RJ]

We need a middle linebacker who can consistantly stuff the run and cover a little better to the sidelines.


I'm still wondering why Maslowski was in position to recover the Packers OT fumble. Should our MLB have been in front of the play that far downfield? I'd love to see an overhead view of that play.

Mind you, I'm not complaining. He covered the ball up and left no chance for a green uni to get the ball. I'd just like to know why he was there.

[Rausch]

Mind you, I'm not complaining. He covered the ball up and left no chance for a green uni to get the ball. I'd just like to know why he was there.

Because that's where the ball was...... ;)

[KcMizzou]

Because that's where the ball was...... ;)ROFL

damn good point.

[Gaz]

I am mildly annoyed that we are playing a “Bend, Don’t Break” Defense. It irks a Defense Homer to know that his team deliberately installed a plan to allow The Enemy to romp up and down the field at will. I am philosophically opposed to that concept.

However, I am not particularly concerned with this iteration of the B,DB Defense, because it is working just the way it is supposed to work. An injection of talent turned the 32 D into a true ball-hawking D.

IMO, there were [2] problems on Defense against the Packers:

1. We were playing the Packers and their Offense was clicking. Give them some credit, folks. They are an excellent Offense.

2. The Chiefs Offense could not stay on the field. Our Defense was exhausted before halftime. I am truly impressed with the guts they showed in stuffing Green Bay for the 4th quarter while the R&G O got its feces together.

Make no mistake, we WILL play teams that do not turn the ball over. When that happens, let us hope the Offense is awake or Hall is hot.

xoxo~
Gaz
Zen-like in his acceptance of B,DB in the R&G.

[Skip Towne]

I think Maz was probably in pass coverage. That would explain him being so far downfield.

[mlyonsd]

This next game could tell the tale.

If Gannon and the rest of the misfits on Fantasy Island light up our defense Monday night, especially noting their current state of disarray, I will begin to worry.

[KCTitus]

Actually, Im more worried about the running game. It wasnt very productive last Sunday.

[morphius]

I'm more convinced then ever that Sims is the key to the DL, and his health is almost as important as Priests.

[ChiTown]

If the Chiefs are 6-0 now, what's going to happen when our D starts to play with more consistency? What's going to happen when Priest gets to full speed and has a complete recovery with the injury. What's going to happen when Kawika Mitchell starts to get PT, and finds himself as a huge playmaker? What's going to happen when TG and the Offense are clicking on all cylinders?

Those things should be of major concern for Denver and the rest of the AFC, IMO.

[PastorMikH]

Yes I am concerned. I see our CBs as still the biggest weakness. Our D seems to hold the offense on first and second downs only to get beat with the pass for a third down conversion. We need better play from our CBs or better CBs.

[ChiTown]

Yes I am concerned. I see our CBs as still the biggest weakness. Our D seems to hold the offense on first and second downs only to get beat with the pass for a third down conversion. We need better play from our CBs or better CBs.

The KC Chiefs are 8th in the NFL in holding teams on 3rd down. Teams are only converting on 3rd down at a 33.7% clip. Pretty damned good IMO

[htismaqe]

Yardage stats are over-rated, except for rushing yards...

Rushing yards translates directly into time of possession, which can kill a defense...

Not at all worried about giving up tons of passing yards, 8 of the last 10 Super Bowl participants have done the same...

[Mr. Kotter]

If the Chiefs are 6-0 now, what's going to happen when our D starts to play with more consistency? What's going to happen when Priest gets to full speed and has a complete recovery with the injury. What's going to happen when Kawika Mitchell starts to get PT, and finds himself as a huge playmaker? What's going to happen when TG and the Offense are clicking on all cylinders?

Those things should be of major concern for Denver and the rest of the AFC, IMO.

I know...and I agree, generally. :D

However, there is a side of me that thinks we could be the NFL version of the Cubs... :huh: :doh!:

I HOPE I'm wrong.... :thumb:

[Mr. Kotter]

Actually, Im more worried about the running game. It wasnt very productive last Sunday.

I'm convinced Dick and Al just take what the "D" gives them.

If the enemy is stuffing the run, then they cut Green loose. If the enemy has 4 or 5 guys in pass coverage, then we shove Priest down their throat. This allows the enemy to pick their poison.... :p

:D

[htismaqe]

The KC Chiefs are 8th in the NFL in holding teams on 3rd down. Teams are only converting on 3rd down at a 33.7% clip. Pretty damned good IMO

Wow.

[ChiTown]

Yardage stats are over-rated, except for rushing yards...

Rushing yards translates directly into time of possession, which can kill a defense...

Not at all worried about giving up tons of passing yards, 8 of the last 10 Super Bowl participants have done the same...

This is my only concern of Defense. The Chiefs are near the bottom of the league on rushing yards allowed per game. As you mention, that type of stat is dangerous due to TOP. If we can sure up this end of the D, I can only see greatness in our future, especially if Kawicka Mitchell can be the beast I think he is in the the middle.

[Mr. Kotter]

Yardage stats are over-rated, except for rushing yards...

Rushing yards translates directly into time of possession, which can kill a defense...

Not at all worried about giving up tons of passing yards, 8 of the last 10 Super Bowl participants have done the same...

That's a good point. :thumb:

And I agree mostly. Time of possession is a vastly underestimated stat. A lot of Defenses tire, and as a result, end up giving up cheap yards. So that should be a real concern... :huh:

[Mr. Kotter]

I am mildly annoyed that we are playing a “Bend, Don’t Break” Defense. It irks a Defense Homer to know that his team deliberately installed a plan to allow The Enemy to romp up and down the field at will. I am philosophically opposed to that concept...

...Make no mistake, we WILL play teams that do not turn the ball over. When that happens, let us hope the Offense is awake or Hall is hot.

xoxo~
Gaz
Zen-like in his acceptance of B,DB in the R&G.


My thoughts precisely. :grr:

:)

[htismaqe]

That's a good point. :thumb:

And I agree mostly. Time of possession is a vastly underestimated stat. A lot of Defenses tire, and as a result, end up giving up cheap yards. So that should be a real concern... :huh:


Exactly.

Our defense not only gave up yards last Sunday, they were physically BEAT UP. They spent way too much time on the field.

[ChiTown]

Exactly.

Our defense not only gave up yards last Sunday, they were physically BEAT UP. They spent way too much time on the field.

This is exactly why I was overwhelmed with joy that we scored our FG with just a couple of tic's left on the clock. I honestly believe that had we scored a quick TD or FG, that the Pack would have stormed down the field in nothing flat. Not to mention, Baker wasn't getting his kicks much past the 15 yards line - that was a killer.

[htismaqe]

This is exactly why I was overwhelmed with joy that we scored our FG with just a couple of tic's left on the clock. I honestly believe that had we scored a quick TD or FG, that the Pack would have stormed down the field in nothing flat. Not to mention, Baker wasn't getting his kicks much past the 15 yards line - that was a killer.

I'm wondering if the temp and humidity has something to do with the kicks on Sunday. The ball looked dead -- like it wasn't fully inflated, which could have been due to low temps plus high humidity. That's the 1st game I've seen Baker not at least get it to the 5 on a consistent basis...

[ChiTown]

I'm wondering if the temp and humidity has something to do with the kicks on Sunday. The ball looked dead -- like it wasn't fully inflated, which could have been due to low temps plus high humidity. That's the 1st game I've seen Baker not at least get it to the 5 on a consistent basis...

Could be, his punts looked horrible too. However, Longwell didn't have much trouble with that 50 yard FG. That kick was solid and true.

[chiefsfan1963]

hopefully the D will get better as we move toward the playoffs and peak in the playoffs. that's where we will need them to be their best. obviously that goes double for our O.

[htismaqe]

hopefully the D will get better as we move toward the playoffs and peak in the playoffs. that's where we will need them to be their best. obviously that goes double for our O.

Is it surprising that you're here, poo-poo'ing the defense, when you haven't yet posted on the thread about Trent Green and the offense?

Or do you not have the sack?

[Mr. Kotter]

Could be, his punts looked horrible too. However, Longwell didn't have much trouble with that 50 yard FG. That kick was solid and true.

Ya think the Packers kept the GOOD balls for themselves? :hmmm:

Nahhhhhhh!!!! ROFL

[Mr. Kotter]

Is it surprising that you're here, poo-poo'ing the defense, when you haven't yet posted on the thread about Trent Green and the offense?

Or do you not have the sack?

Is there some "history" here??? :hmmm:

[AirForceChief]

I'm more convinced then ever that Sims is the key to the DL, and his health is almost as important as Priests.

Exactly. If you don't agree with this proposition, just look for the lack of middle pressure when Sims is gone...I don't care who's manning the other inside position. When Sims is out, QBs have more time to look down field, and nobody is disrupting running plays in the backfield. Sims is key to our defensive success. When he's there, the LBs seem a lot more active. I think this is b/c Sims demands double teams and even distracts a back or TE who is helping on the blocking schemes.

My big problem with last week's defensive effort was our tendency for the first man to the ball carrier going for the strip/turnover. It killed us last year and it will do so again this year if the coaches don't put a stop to it. The first man to the ball MUST WRAP UP!! Wow, what a novel idea. If you watch the tape, on Aman Green's fumble, the first LB to him hit him low and wrapped up, then Woods came at a sitting duck and put his helmet on Green's elbow and the ball. When you tackle the ball first you allow extra yardage. When you put your helmet into the ball carrier w/o wrapping up, backs like Green, Portis, Lewis, etc. (our Holmes for that matter) are strong enough to stay up and keep on churnin' out the big yardage. Instead of 2nd and seven or eight, your looking at a first down or 2nd and short (any offenses favorite play calling position).

More Sims and solid tackling techniques!! Keep this train a' rollin'!!!

[ChiTown]

Is there some "history" here??? :hmmm:

Are you serious. CF1963 was all over the Chiefs and calling for their downfall because of how inept the passing game was. 400 yards and 3 TD's in a comeback win, including the 51 yard arrow to win it in OT. Yeah, TG and the passing game better get it going....

[chiefsfan1963]

Is it surprising that you're here, poo-poo'ing the defense, when you haven't yet posted on the thread about Trent Green and the offense?

Or do you not have the sack?

I just got back from Green bay. So I didn't realize there was a thread like that. I'll be sure to respond.

[Mr. Kotter]

Are you serious. CF1963 was all over the Chiefs and calling for their downfall because of how inept the passing game was. 400 yards and 3 TD's in a comeback win, including the 51 yard arrow to win it in OT. Yeah, TG and the passing game better get it going....

I guess I missed that....my apologies. :)

[chiefsfan1963]

Are you serious. CF1963 was all over the Chiefs and calling for their downfall because of how inept the passing game was. 400 yards and 3 TD's in a comeback win, including the 51 yard arrow to win it in OT. Yeah, TG and the passing game better get it going....

Now I understand why most people don't talk to the media. It's not b/c they're guilty of anything or afraid to tell the truth, it's b/c they are afraid that what they say will be misquoted or taken out of context. :grr:

[ptlyon]

Now I understand why most people don't talk to the media. It's not b/c they're guilty of anything or afraid to tell the truth, it's b/c they are afraid that what they say will be misquoted or taken out of context. :grr:


Don't start that '63! We've got some people who REALLY know how to find peoples old posts around here!

[chiefsfan1963]

Don't start that '63! We've got some people who REALLY know how to find peoples old posts around here!


bring it! :mad:

[ChiTown]

Now I understand why most people don't talk to the media. It's not b/c they're guilty of anything or afraid to tell the truth, it's b/c they are afraid that what they say will be misquoted or taken out of context. :grr:


Sorry, CF1963, I mean't to throw a smilie in there ;) and just got lazy. Just giving you a hard time..

[htismaqe]

Now I understand why most people don't talk to the media. It's not b/c they're guilty of anything or afraid to tell the truth, it's b/c they are afraid that what they say will be misquoted or taken out of context. :grr:

Nothing was taken out of context.

Most people's contention with you has little to do with the CONTENT of your posts.

It has much more to do with the FREQUENCY and REPETITION of said content.

The simple fact is that you said the offense needed to step up. They did that, and now you're on the defense without giving any credit for them doing EXACTLY what you wanted them to do.

[TEX]

What concerns me is the inability to stop the run. I maintained from the beginning that if the Chiefs could do that, we'd be fine. It seems as though we have not been effective the last 3 games. It was also around that time when we started rotating our D-lineman more. The Chiefs defense needs an identity. They need tobe able to identify what it is they can do and they need to be able to do it well. In the beginning of the year, they could stop the run.

[htismaqe]

What concerns me is the inability to stop the run. I maintained from the beginning that if the Chiefs could do that, we'd be fine. It seems as though we have not been effective the last 3 games. It was also around that time when we started rotating our D-lineman more. The Chiefs defense needs an identity. They need tobe able to identify what it is they can do and they need to be able to do it well. In the beginning of the year, they could stop the run.

I totally agree.

[Mr. Kotter]

What concerns me is the inability to stop the run. I maintained from the beginning that if the Chiefs could do that, we'd be fine.

If we can't stop the run, January could bring big disappointment once again... :huh:

How odd that Indianapolis and Denver are poised to be our main obstacles to the Superbowl...and we have lost to BOTH those teams, at Arrowhead, in a playoff game during the last 10 years. :eek:

[Mr. Kotter]

With Plummer out the next three weeks....we COULD have a 3 or 4 game lead by the Denver game.... :)

Of course, we COULD be three games back by then too.... :eek:

I do like our chances though... :hmmm:

o:-)

[dtrain]

I think Maz was probably in pass coverage. That would explain him being so far downfield.
he shouldn't have been that far down the field cause it was a straight pitch sweep. he should have been attacking that play from the inside out with the de and outside backer working on turning it in which is what happened but no maz to clean up.

[Mr. Kotter]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Damn, I was a prophet....eh?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Baby Lee]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Damn, I was a prophet....eh?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Ooohhhh!! SD has realized that our D has problems. Quick, cite me some lottery numbers. ;)

[htismaqe]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Damn, I was a prophet....eh?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I've been saying for the better part of the Planet's existence.

Super Bowl teams STOP THE RUN. It's that simple.

[Mr. Kotter]

Ooohhhh!! SD has realized that our D has problems. Quick, cite me some lottery numbers. ;)


BABYLEE....check the DATE of the orginal POST....we were undefeated at the time....

[Baby Lee]

I've been saying for the better part of the Planet's existence.

Super Bowl teams STOP THE RUN. It's that simple.
The most painful irony was that, just as Martyball went out of vogue here in flyover country, the league saw the rise of dominant Ds and anemic Os winning championships. Sure, there were the '99 Rams, who BTW in the were engaged in defensive struggles. But then there was Baltimore, Tampa Bay and 2x New England, each of which looked much more like us in the early '90s than what we're trying to do now.

[htismaqe]

The most painful irony was that, just as Martyball went out of vogue here in flyover country, the league saw the rise of dominant Ds and anemic Os winning championships. Sure, there were the '99 Rams, who BTW in the were engaged in defensive struggles. But then there was Baltimore, Tampa Bay and 2x New England, each of which looked much more like us in the early '90s than what we're trying to do now.

All of those teams, INCLUDING the high-flying 98 Broncos and 99 Rams were great against the run. The 1999 Rams were FIRST in the NFL against the run.

I really wish we could stop the run.

[Baby Lee]

The most painful irony was that, just as Martyball went out of vogue here in flyover country, the league saw the rise of dominant Ds and anemic Os winning championships. Sure, there were the '99 Rams, who BTW in the were engaged in defensive struggles. But then there was Baltimore, Tampa Bay and 2x New England, each of which looked much more like us in the early '90s than what we're trying to do now.
Not to mention some unnamed idjets around here who proudly proclaimed "eff the D, I'm just excited to see some exciting O for once" only to become the biggest, and tiredest, D poormouth around when his own dreams came to fruition.

[Coach]

I made a post about my conerns about the defense on a different thread, but I'll do it again.

What is the difference between saying their defense is terrible and our defense is terrible?

I watched the game too you know, we couldn't stop them from running and they couldn't stop us from running.

They had a better completion percentage, mostly because we had to continually bring up safeties for blitzes and run support but only 2 more completions for 60 yards. We had 2 sacks to their 1, 2 interceptions to thier 1 and 3 fumbles with one recovery to their 0.

Their defense is supposed to be rock solid yet I see NOTHING at all to indicate that it was anything above and beyond ours.

Speaking of us stopping them because of bonehead plays, what about Green running backwards 23 yards on that one sack and a good ways when he threw that interception? If that wasn't boneheaded I don't know what was.

Point is that our offense didn't play as well as they should have, our special teams were all but nonexistant and our defense played as good if not better than I expected for the first time out at a tough opposing rivals house in a new more aggressive scheme with a new coordinator.

Do we need to get better?

Hell yes, but so does the Denver squad compared to last night.

Should we worry about it right now? No, because not only will it do absolutely no good at all other than frustrate everyone but it was one game! The first game.

If they look the same 3 games from now I would say it would be safe to be concenred a bit.

[Baby Lee]

I made a post about my conerns about the defense on a different thread, but I'll do it again.

What is the difference between saying their defense is terrible and our defense is terrible?

I watched the game too you know, we couldn't stop them from running and they couldn't stop us from running.

They had a better completion percentage, mostly because we had to continually bring up safeties for blitzes and run support but only 2 more completions for 60 yards. We had 2 sacks to their 1, 2 interceptions to thier 1 and 3 fumbles with one recovery to their 0.

Their defense is supposed to be rock solid yet I see NOTHING at all to indicate that it was anything above and beyond ours.

Speaking of us stopping them because of bonehead plays, what about Green running backwards 23 yards on that one sack and a good ways when he threw that interception? If that wasn't boneheaded I don't know what was.

Point is that our offense didn't play as well as they should have, our special teams were all but nonexistant and our defense played as good if not better than I expected for the first time out at a tough opposing rivals house in a new more aggressive scheme with a new coordinator.

Do we need to get better?

Hell yes, but so does the Denver squad compared to last night.

Should we worry about it right now? No, because not only will it do absolutely no good at all other than frustrate everyone but it was one game! The first game.

If they look the same 3 games from now I would say it would be safe to be concenred a bit.
You speak heapum truth, Kemosabe.

[htismaqe]

I made a post about my conerns about the defense on a different thread, but I'll do it again.

What is the difference between saying their defense is terrible and our defense is terrible?

I watched the game too you know, we couldn't stop them from running and they couldn't stop us from running.

They had a better completion percentage, mostly because we had to continually bring up safeties for blitzes and run support but only 2 more completions for 60 yards. We had 2 sacks to their 1, 2 interceptions to thier 1 and 3 fumbles with one recovery to their 0.

Their defense is supposed to be rock solid yet I see NOTHING at all to indicate that it was anything above and beyond ours.

Speaking of us stopping them because of bonehead plays, what about Green running backwards 23 yards on that one sack and a good ways when he threw that interception? If that wasn't boneheaded I don't know what was.

Point is that our offense didn't play as well as they should have, our special teams were all but nonexistant and our defense played as good if not better than I expected for the first time out at a tough opposing rivals house in a new more aggressive scheme with a new coordinator.

Do we need to get better?

Hell yes, but so does the Denver squad compared to last night.

Should we worry about it right now? No, because not only will it do absolutely no good at all other than frustrate everyone but it was one game! The first game.

If they look the same 3 games from now I would say it would be safe to be concenred a bit.

Great post. I'm sorry I missed it the first time you posted it.

It's an excellent point. The supposedly-improved "best defense in football" allowed, AT HOME, twice as many rushing yards from Priest as he had in BOTH GAMES last season.

[KCTitus]

The most painful irony was that, just as Martyball went out of vogue here in flyover country, the league saw the rise of dominant Ds and anemic Os winning championships. Sure, there were the '99 Rams, who BTW in the were engaged in defensive struggles. But then there was Baltimore, Tampa Bay and 2x New England, each of which looked much more like us in the early '90s than what we're trying to do now.

Do we need to dig this up again? If it 'works' then why didnt it work for KC? The only playoff wins KC got were off the back of Joe Montana...

Aside from Tampa and Baltimore, STL and NE did/do have more than an anemic offense.

[Calcountry]

Do we need to dig this up again? If it 'works' then why didnt it work for KC? The only playoff wins KC got were off the back of Joe Montana...

Aside from Tampa and Baltimore, STL and NE did/do have more than an anemic offense.
I think believing is a big thing, plus, there was no one better at looking off Dbacks and finding open receivers than Montana.

[Baby Lee]

Do we need to dig this up again? If it 'works' then why didnt it work for KC? The only playoff wins KC got were off the back of Joe Montana...

Aside from Tampa and Baltimore, STL and NE did/do have more than an anemic offense.
FTR - I'm not 'pro' anemic O. I'm vociferously pro dominating D, to the point that you do all on D that you can and never allow concerns on O to overshadow continued excellence on D.
And yes, St.L. had a great O, but they had no greater numbers on O in the Tampa Bay NFC championship game than Grbac had in our 'awful' 'embarassing' game in Denver in '97, only they were at home and had one more bounce go their way than we did.
And while NE is not an anemic O, I don't see anything about their O that is head and shoulders above what we had in the 90s, except for clutch play in the 4th. Like I said, they have MORE IN COMMON with us in the 90s than what we're trying to do now, NOT they are a clone of us in the 90s.

[listopencil]

I am.

[RealSNR]

U drunk?

[KurtCobain]

I am.

Me too. We'll still be able to run Denver though, so fuck you.

[listopencil]

U drunk?


Maybe.

[listopencil]

Me too. We'll still be able to run Denver though, so **** you.



Butt hurt?

[listopencil]

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7497895&postcount=10

[KurtCobain]

How am I butt hurt? I'm very confident we'll run denver, Dante Hall will just tear it up like he just did. 16-0 baby.

[listopencil]

How am I butt hurt? I'm very confident we'll run denver, Dante Hall will just tear it up like he just did. 16-0 baby.


Check the date of the OP, man. I'm just screwing with you.

[KurtCobain]

Check the date of the OP, man. I'm just screwing with you.

Yeah, I know, I was referring that we would surely beat the broncos again in 2003, which didn't happen, it was sarcasm making fun of the worst year of my life.

9-0 playoff bust. fuck me.

[listopencil]

Yeah, I know, I was referring that we would surely beat the broncos again in 2003, which didn't happen, it was sarcasm making fun of the worst year of my life.

9-0 playoff bust. **** me.


Shit happens.

[KurtCobain]

Shit happens.

I guess so.

[KurtCobain]

Hey I'll ve honest though, I could see easily see Tebow : Super Bowl Champion before I could imagine Matt Cassel : Super Bow...heh I can't even honestly type it out.

Not with the Broncos though. But he could lead a good team there. Cassel would fuck up the number one running game and the number one defense in the playoffs.

[listopencil]

Hey I'll ve honest though, I could see easily see Tebow : Super Bowl Champion before I could imagine Matt Cassel : Super Bow...heh I can't even honestly type it out.

Not with the Broncos though. But he could lead a good team there. Cassel would **** up the number one running game and the number one defense in the playoffs.

I do like the kid's fire. He does seem to make the team play better around him. I have no idea WTF happened with Cassel. Looks like fallout from the McDaniels crapstorm.

[Mr. Kotter]

Holy crap, I was/am? good. Really good. Cowherd move the fugg outta my way.

I was a psychic (not psycho, FTR) before I realized it. Damn. :shake:


;)