Originally Posted by Douche Baggins (Post 10551939)

This is why it's so important to have a difference maker at QB.

They are good deodorant for otherwise powerful stink.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 10551950)

So true.

The fact is, outside of Rodgers, the receivers, and Clay Matthews, the Pack's drafts have been pretty damn smelly.

And we are relying on the guy who had been heading that scouting department to change our draft fortunes.

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 10551936)

I think this is all the downside of parity. Parity is a HUGE part of what makes the NFL so great, compelling games week-in, week-out. But parity also means that even shitty teams are pretty damn good.

For as bad as we had it last year with a Jeckyl Hyde defense and a meltdown in the playoffs, imagine being a Packer fan, they are a blessed franchise, a model franchise, but one arm going up to Aaron Rodger's collarbone and they're INSTANTLY a middle of the road ho-hum team playing out the string, they had to know right away.

Same with us, after the 2011 string of ACLs, we breathe a sigh of relief. That was a fluke, that'll never happen again. Then we see what even minor irritations for Hali and Houston mean for us this past year.

Every single game in the NFL, there are things that happen off screen that, if a savvier set of players recognized it, would have resulted in vastly different outcomes. Some of the most moribund offenses in the league just plain fail to see free-running WRs open for TDs, or flailing OLmen whose deficits aren't being exploited.

The key these days is keeping healthy and having quality depth.

This is what made the Seahawks so exciting to watch throughout the playoffs. Were they the most dominant at every position in the history of the league, no. But they were the best at maximizing positives and minimizing negatives. Is this guy a ferocious playmaker? No, then have him occupy a player in space and let the playmakers make plays elsewhere. They weren't the '854 Bears, . . . but they looked like it because they met power with power and let weakness hide over with weakness.

I've said it before and I'll say it again here, an NFL team is like a naturally aspirated, carburetor fueled engine. One thing gets out of whack and the entire feedback loop is disrupted and the whole machine runs like dog shit. We have a lot of quality players who, if the MACHINE is running clean can rape faces, on O and on D. But you slow down the pass rush 1 millisecond and now you're relying on your FS to keep it all together and his dog shit rises to the surface and the entire swamp looks like a pile of dog shit. Alex can led a well oiled offense, but let Bowe have a few drops, or some of our less savvy WRs run bullshit routes, or barely concuss our best RB and take our 2nd best RB out with injury as well, and we're running the O with a Yugo power plant.

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 10551936)

I think this is all the downside of parity. Parity is a HUGE part of what makes the NFL so great, compelling games week-in, week-out. But parity also means that even shitty teams are pretty damn good.

For as bad as we had it last year with a Jeckyl Hyde defense and a meltdown in the playoffs, imagine being a Packer fan, they are a blessed franchise, a model franchise, but one arm going up to Aaron Rodger's collarbone and they're INSTANTLY a middle of the road ho-hum team playing out the string, they had to know right away.

Same with us, after the 2011 string of ACLs, we breathe a sigh of relief. That was a fluke, that'll never happen again. Then we see what even minor irritations for Hali and Houston mean for us this past year.

Every single game in the NFL, there are things that happen off screen that, if a savvier set of players recognized it, would have resulted in vastly different outcomes. Some of the most moribund offenses in the league just plain fail to see free-running WRs open for TDs, or flailing OLmen whose deficits aren't being exploited.

The key these days is keeping healthy and having quality depth.

This is what made the Seahawks so exciting to watch throughout the playoffs. Were they the most dominant at every position in the history of the league, no. But they were the best at maximizing positives and minimizing negatives. Is this guy a ferocious playmaker? No, then have him occupy a player in space and let the playmakers make plays elsewhere. They weren't the '854 Bears, . . . but they looked like it because they met power with power and let weakness hide over with weakness.

I've said it before and I'll say it again here, an NFL team is like a naturally aspirated, carburetor fueled engine. One thing gets out of whack and the entire feedback loop is disrupted and the whole machine runs like dog shit. We have a lot of quality players who, if the MACHINE is running clean can rape faces, on O and on D. But you slow down the pass rush 1 millisecond and now you're relying on your FS to keep it all together and his dog shit rises to the surface and the entire swamp looks like a pile of dog shit. Alex can led a well oiled offense, but let Bowe have a few drops, or some of our less savvy WRs run bullshit routes, or barely concuss our best RB and take our 2nd best RB out with injury as well, and we're running the O with a Yugo power plant.

Originally Posted by Douche Baggins (Post 10551993)

It's just weird. Going to a Chiefs game feels like going to Six Flags now. It's like a theme park for barbecue and gallows humor. SEE the latest episode in the Tragedy of Arrowhead!

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 10551915)

That's not very Sporting of you.

Originally Posted by temper11 (Post 10551990)

This was an excellent post.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 10550792)

The idea is you get those guys now in free agnecy, and that lets you draft purely for BPA. It goes hand in hand with your draft strategy to stock up on as much talent as possible. And in doing so, you cut dead weight every year and replace it with those draft picks. It means that next year you cut guys like Daniel, Flowers, and Fasano. If you drafted right, you might even be able to save money on letting go of a Sean Smith or Mike DeVito. If you're REALLY doing it right, Tamba Hali would also get let go. And that's how you afford to keep Berry, Houston, and Alex Smith.

No, the system isn't perfect. You're going to get some sour picks and sour free agents, but the key is it grants flexibility. That's the most important part. For example, let's say we signed TJ Ward. That means there is less pressure on us to take a Calvin Pryor at 23 when potentially a player like Eric Ebron drops to our spot. Or Mike Evans. Or Darqueze Dennard. Or ****... perhaps even Teddy Bridgewater. The draft is fully of unexpected surprises, and in a deep class like this one, there will be several players that we're shocked to see still available.

If you take care of pressing needs in free agency, that means there's no pressure to take need into account when making your choices. It's the difference between the Chiefs taking Xavier Suo'Filo because they have to and taking Dee Ford or Rashede Hageman because they WANT to.

Originally Posted by scott free (Post 10552102)

Totally agree with this, the judicious import of young, proven free agents to fill starting spot needs gives you so much much more leeway in the draft, while almost guaranteeing a high level of production at those starting spots... it simply allows a team to be creative in the draft.

One TJ Ward signing has a domino effect on the entire team and draft process... not even one real difference maker this year, I still don't get it.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10551637)

OK, so your statement about getting depth through the draft was false then...

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10552340)

What gives you the most leeway is walking into the draft believing you can take anybody, even if you have a starter already at that position. If you sign TJ Ward and send the message that you're trying to "win now" then you just took Safety off your draft board and are now forced to target a draft pick who is ready to start right away. That means drafting a safe pick and pigeonholing yourself to filling a few positions of need, versus walking into the draft with an open mind.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 10552380)

You have this backwards.

This team has 2 major holes.
Ignoring free agency means you have to go into this draft targeting those holes.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 10552380)

You have this backwards.

This team has 2 major holes.
Ignoring free agency means you have to go into this draft targeting those holes.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 10552380)

You have this backwards.

This team has 2 major holes.
Ignoring free agency means you have to go into this draft targeting those holes.

Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 10552391)

Bingo.

If we had signed TJ Ward/Clemons, Evan-Deitrich Smith and Emmanuel Sanders, the draft would be like a bonus.

Those 3 signings would have been easy to make happen, too.

Convert Hali and Bowes base salaries to bonuses and lets roll.

But, no.

We sat on our hands and waited for other tams we are "competing with" to bolster their already superior rosters while we play the "next year" game AGAIN.

Very aggravating.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10552340)

What gives you the most leeway is walking into the draft believing you can take anybody, even if you have a starter already at that position. If you sign TJ Ward and send the message that you're trying to "win now" then you just took Safety off your draft board and are now forced to target a draft pick who is ready to start right away. That means drafting a safe pick and pigeonholing yourself to filling a few positions of need, versus walking into the draft with an open mind.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10552416)

If you are in "win now" mode, then you have to get immediate contributors. And you tend to use your draft to upgrade your weak starters and rule out positions where we are already strong.

If you aren't in a rush, you draft BPA. Period. In every single round. You draft QBs even if Alex Smith isn't going anywhere for a while. You draft pass rushers even if you probably have a 3 year window on your stud OLBs.

If you draft a guard in the first, well… **** me sideways.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10552424)

You keep bringing up the point about converting Hali and Bowes contract to bonuses. But ignore the fact that with signing bonus money, you are guaranteeing more money for them in their declining years.

If you want to win now at all costs today, fine. But let's not pretend there aren't consequences.

Originally Posted by scott free (Post 10552428)

Taking Ward doesn't mean you cant draft his competition/depth... but it also means you don't have to worry to death about that one position if you don't want to and maybe focus on a scary young talent to groom behind Hali, or take a second WR behind your #1 receiver pick for insurance, or take a TE where you couldn't before because of the pressing safety need, or take WHOEVER you want at a given spot, even if they might need a little polishing.

Like I said, its a domino effect... you eliminate one need and it becomes like tetris blocks falling into place with the draft, you can take what you NEED or take what you WANT.

ONE GUY...one semi-stud at one of two positions... its not like most fans were asking for the moon, but please just make a difference.

Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 10552446)

You don't seem to understand facts. No matter how many times I present them, you argue the same fruitless points. I don't understand it.

In 3 years, the salary cap is gonna be 150-155 million (maybe more, but at least that much) and players like Bowe, Hali, Flowers and Charles are gonna be gone, as will their contracts.

You think converting 8 million of Bowes base salary and spreading it between te next 4 years would hurt this teams cap situation? That's laughable. How about converting 5 million of Hali's base to a bonus over the next 3 years...that's 13 million that won't hurt this tam AT ALL over the next 2-3 years ...BUT THE TEAM COULD ADD SANDERS, WARD/CLEMONS AND DEITRICH SMITH WITH THAT MONEY.

add to that, the draft picks we have coming in as well as the players from last years draft that didnt contribute due to various reasons and EVERYONE HERE would be excited about next year.

Instead, you choose to tow the company line, as usual.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 10552439)

Don't care if you are win now or drafting for the future,

You have 2 gaping chasms on your team, you can not ignore them.

Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 10552461)

FTR, I don't even care that we didnt go after Desean Jackson...even though 8/yr for him was a good value. I'd rather have spend a little more than Denver to get Emmanuel Sanders.

Wards signed for less than 6
Sanders signed for 5
Deitrich Smith signed for 3.5
Clemons signed for around 4 iirc

Those were the values they should have pursued if they were serious about trying to contend next year without screwing the cap.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10552456)

What's laughable is you think that Bowe and Hali would agree to restructure guaranteed money into a small signing bonus like that. If you wait one year, THEN you can start talking about the Chiefs restructuring with a reasonable signing bonus.

If I'm Hali's agent and I know Hali is basically guaranteed $11M this year (he knows he won't get cut), then why in the world would I settle for only an $11M signing bonus?

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10552458)

If you feel like this team has to win now. I understand why you think they should focus on that. I just don't agree.

Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 10552474)

You obviously don't even understand how restructures work.

Bowe has a base salary of 8.75 million this year that he will get in 16 installments as game checks. The veteran minimum for a 7 year veteran is 720,000.

Restructuring his deal means instead of paying him game checks, we give him one check for 8 million and drop his base salary to the vet minimum. That 8 million then gets spread over the course of the remaining years of his contract, in this case 4 years.

The player has no reason to say no and it clears that 8 million off the current years salary cap.

With the facts being that the salary cap is increasing at a crazy amount and the advanced age of a large part of our core group of layers is getting to the prime years and even exiting those prime years, wouldn't you have to agree that NOW would be a great time to not nessesarily go "all in" but AT LEAST RAISE THE POT?

FFS

Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 10552479)

What the **** are you talking about?

FFS read the shit you are typing and stop being a brainwashed ....well, nevermind.

You can't be unbrainwashed.

What's the point of trying to talk sense into people that don't want to see the light.

You will always think its ok to wait till next year...even though next year never happens.

Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 10552502)

Brainwashed into accepting mediocrity.

Not just accepting it, but full blown embracing it and even supporting it.

Sad.

Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 10552522)

I've held that opinion as long as anyone here.

I've NEVER piggybacked off anyone's comments, ever.

I think this is a 8-10 win team that won't be able to compete during the playoffs because of the 2-3 huge holes it has...I also think this team has the potential to win 12 games if we had solidified its weaknesses through free agency and has a strong draft.

Not just 12 wins, but also a team that could beat ANYONE in the AFC in the playoffs.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10552538)

This is still a team that ended the season at 2-5 and while we were impressive in the Colts game, we still lost to a team that got whalloped by the Patriots (who didn't even win the conference. Denver then beat New England). And Denver and New England got a hell of a lot better this offseason. And then we face either Seattle, New Orleans, or San Fran in the Super Bowl?

So I don't disagree with you that today we are a bubble playoff team and we could actually win a playoff game with 2 or 3 holes fixed. But we are still a longshot to win a Super Bowl.

By the way… I don't believe in constantly waiting until next year. I want a big push in 2015 and would hardly call calling for Houston, Berry, and Smith extensions small potatoes.

Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 10552566)

:facepalm:

You always push "next year" and always use "the salary cap" as an excuse why we shouldn't try to win THIS YEAR.

The reason: you are brainwashed because that's all this team has EVER done, sans the Joe Montana years.

Originally Posted by mcaj22 (Post 10552586)

and it looks like it will continue to be both judging by the horrible 2013 draft and the JAG FAs on the roster.

Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 10552566)

:facepalm:

You always push "next year" and always use "the salary cap" as an excuse why we shouldn't try to win THIS YEAR.

The reason: you are brainwashed because that's all this team has EVER done, sans the Joe Montana years.

Originally Posted by Fruit Ninja (Post 10552622)

Even them MOntana years were false hope. While Montana was an all time great, he was so beat up when we got him, he was playing just to prove to S.F that he still had something.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10552573)

Right, because the Vermeil years were an exercise in responsible cap management and building through the draft. Because Peterson's push to fill holes in the early Herm years worked really well.

This team has been shitty in all phases of the game the last 20 years. Stop acting like my approach hasn't worked, but somehow yours has. We've sucked in the draft. And free agents haven't worked for us. It's both.

Originally Posted by TEX (Post 10552675)

Glad you mention the "Vermeil years." What happened in the 2003 & 2004 seasons? Welcome back to the future...

Originally Posted by PGM (Post 10552723)

Bitch Planet

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10552715)

Is this a serious question? In 2003, the Chiefs went on a huge spending binge bringing in Shawn Barber, Vonnie Holliday, Dexter McCleon. 2004 they were quiet, but attempted to fill in their Right Tackle problem with John Welbourn. In 2005, they binged again by bringing in Sammy Knight, Kendrell Bell, trading big for Patrick Surtain. You'll recall that during the entire DV era, it was extremely difficult for rookies to win starting jobs.

And in 2005, rather than cut the cord and rebuild, we decided to spend money on McIntosh and Ty Law to band aid the team.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10552573)

This team has been shitty in all phases of the game the last 20 years.

Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 10552728)

And what have they done this offseason?

Except let 3 starting quality OL walk, of course.

I even started a thread a couple months back about how this offseason feels similar to the 2004 offseason in many ways.

Jeff linkinburg and Joe Mays to the rescue, ladies and gentlemen!!!

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 10552735)

Everyone wanted to build through the draft.

Well, we're doing it...

Originally Posted by theelusiveeightrop (Post 10552746)

Building through the draft only works when those drafted players see the field.

Originally Posted by Coogs (Post 10552739)

Everybody wanted us to spend all of our money and be up against the cap number.

We have done that too!

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 10552735)

Everyone wanted to build through the draft.

Well, we're doing it...

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 10552733)

We've had a top 5 offense twice and a top 10 defense twice in the last 40 years...

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 10552748)

I didn't say they were doing a good job...

Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 10552728)

And what have they done this offseason?

Except let 3 starting quality OL walk, of course.

I even started a thread a couple months back about how this offseason feels similar to the 2004 offseason in many ways.

Jeff linkinburg and Joe Mays to the rescue, ladies and gentlemen!!!

Originally Posted by theelusiveeightrop (Post 10552746)

Building through the draft only works when those drafted players see the field.

Originally Posted by el borracho (Post 10552810)

You know what approach the Chiefs have never tried?- Having a franchise QB. Let me know when the Chiefs have a top 5 QB. Until then, they're just dicking the dog.

Originally Posted by Messier (Post 10552820)

Who do you want?

Originally Posted by el borracho (Post 10552868)

The next John Elway.

Originally Posted by el borracho (Post 10552868)

The next John Elway.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10552715)

Is this a serious question? In 2003, the Chiefs went on a huge spending binge bringing in Shawn Barber, Vonnie Holliday, Dexter McCleon. 2004 they were quiet, but attempted to fill in their Right Tackle problem with John Welbourn. In 2005, they binged again by bringing in Sammy Knight, Kendrell Bell, trading big for Patrick Surtain. You'll recall that during the entire DV era, it was extremely difficult for rookies to win starting jobs.

And in 2005, rather than cut the cord and rebuild, we decided to spend money on McIntosh and Ty Law to band aid the team.

Originally Posted by el borracho (Post 10552810)

You know what approach the Chiefs have never tried?- Having a franchise QB. Let me know when the Chiefs have a top 5 QB. Until then, they're just dicking the dog.

Originally Posted by TEX (Post 10552902)

LMAO Get your years straight dude...
Sure is a serious question. Are you serious with your answer ???

You have your "facts" wrong. KC DID VIRTUALLY NOTHING EXCEPT SIGN THEIR OWN GUYS AND KEPT G.R. after the promising 2003 season. It wasn't until after the KNEW THEY BLEW IT taking that course did they make the changes you mentioned AFTER TAKING A STEP BACKWARDS, GOING 7-9 in 04 and missing the playoffs.

NOW I know why you have most of you're opinions...you, like the Chiefs, dont learn from your mistakes.

As I said, WELCOME BACK TO THE FUTURE. 2014 is setting up to be like '04.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10552903)

There are models that work where you get a very good QB and surround him with a great supporting cast. Eli and Flacco are two great examples. If we follow the Seahawks and 49ers model, we should keep flinging picks at qbs until we find a young gun. I would love to draft Aaron Murray this year.

Originally Posted by Messier (Post 10552891)

And that is...

Originally Posted by el borracho (Post 10552939)

Not some other team's backup.

Originally Posted by el borracho (Post 10552933)

If you want to follow the Seahawks and 9ers model, then the Chiefs need to build an all-time defense.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10553068)

We have to keep gunning for an elite QB but you have to build your team on the 99% likelihood that you won't get one. If Smith starts showing up more consistently in big situations, he could Flacco his way into a Super Bowl. But he, like most qbs not named Brady, Peyton, Brees, or Rodgers probably needs help.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10553070)

Even with a Brady or Brees, a great defense, or even an opportunistic ball-hawking defense (like the Saints their SB year) is extremely helpful.

Anymore, I think you focus almost exclusively on defense and QB first and fill in everything else when you can.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10553093)

I agree. For as much as we obsess about this being a passing league, I still think the best way to win without a hall of fame QB is through ball control and a balanced attack. The Steelers were one of the hotter teams in the second half when they actually had a real rb. I would argue Eli and Flacco had problems because their offense couldn't establish a running game. We aren't talking about Marty ball here. Teams like the Seahawks are still aggressive in the passing game, but also focusing on controlling the clock and establishing a strong running game.

But there will always be an obsession over no huddle and a three passing down strategy.

Originally Posted by el borracho (Post 10553061)

Actually, I should amend that to read "not some guy with years of evidence indicating that he isn't a top 5 QB". A backup with limited experience may or may not develop into a top 5 QB.

Originally Posted by Messier (Post 10553115)

So not a Drew Brees, or Rich Gannon.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10553134)

Definitely NOT Rich Gannon.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 10553198)

I dunno who said it, by I don't agree with the notion that you can't be a Super Bowl contender without a top 5 qb. At all.

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 10552735)

Everyone wanted to build through the draft.

Well, we're doing it...

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10552910)

They did nothing because they were in such a horrible cap situation that they had to shuffle all their contracts around to barely fit under the cap that year. Cmon, man. They spent a shit load on free agents in the vermeil years. Gave up a shit load of draft picks during that time. And we are going to point to one year where they were quiet?

4 seasons of heavy offseason free agency activity and only one playoff berth.

Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 10553234)

They gave up a shitload of draft picks during the Vermiel years? A 2 for Surtain and a 4 for Roaf. Who am I missing/forgetting about?