This.

I'd keep Chan. Outside of that I'm all for you and Clark sitting down over lunch to discuss a winning front office...

I got what you mean't.

But your wording, using "other GMs" left the implication that you yourself were/are a GM.
I know that isn't what you mean't.
I just found it funny and had to comment.

and this "negative nancy" crap has taken over Chiefsplanet. I think that is more "what's wrong" than anyone having some positive hopes. Just because you disagree with his opinion he gets bashed over the head by you and called a dumbass by another.

here, disagree with this:

last playoff win: 1993

that's fifteen years. I'm 25 years old. I was ten years old the last playoff win--****, aren't you younger than me? I can't recall. doesn't matter.

I'll be the first person to be optimistic if THERE'S ANYTHING TO BE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT. have you WATCHED the chiefs lately? we're HORRIBLE.

it has nothing to do with being a 'negative nancy.' it has EVERYTHING to do with people holding onto the adages of a by-gone era. and it's gone. if you want to have positive hopes, PLEASE have a REASON to have positive hopes.

I remember a very specific time when I was younger that my dad was like this--and I didn't understand it then, but I do perfectly now.

the chiefs were playing the giants in the meadowlands. we were down big in the second quarter. he left the room in disgust and went to go mow the lawn. before he left, though, we had an argument. I pounded my fists like the preteen douche I was and said 'the chiefs can win! they can come back!' completely optimistic that the chiefs could overcome all odds and win a meaningless game.

my dad was realistic--he said 'there's no way' and went about his day

I'm like that these days. SOME of you still believe. it's like believing in santa claus--he's still coming for some of you. the rest of us in realism land have no delusions about this team.

I remember crying my eyes out after the 1995 playoff loss to the colts. I remember going on my first cussing tirade after the 1997 playoff loss to the broncos.

I, for one, and SICK TO ****ING DEATH of putting up with 'not quite good enough'--it's ALL this ****ing organization feeds to us. if you want to be spoon-fed bullshit? that's fine with me. I'm all for putting their ****ing heads under the guillotine and MAYBE building a team that's in it for the long haul.

Yeah, but we didn't have to be.

Our defensive coaches could teach players to tackle WITH THEIR ARMS. WRAP UP and foget this power-shoulder-ESPN-highlight-woo-hit-bull$#it.

You can do that. You tell the next guy in the secondary who pulls a "Wesley whiff" that he's sitting the following week. You hit and wrap up.

Short story is we play sloppy, we keep playing sloppy, and we've lost games we could have and should have won. Even with this rebuild rookie-infused roster.

We underachieved HUGE...

With the beheading of Marie "Peterson" Antoinette the age of failure (and pride despite incompetence) is over...

this place is magic

there aren't enough short yellow buses to fill the stadium for that

marty and cowher

hellz ya

Hamas, I'm not suggesting that 3-4 is the answer, but I don't know why you're so convinced that it won't work or that we won't get our money's worth with Dorsey. Dorsey may not make as many tackles or sacks in a 3-4, but arguably, he'd a far more valuable piece to the defense in a 3-4 than in a 4-3. He'd be one of many in a long line of impact DEs in a 3-4, from Richard Seymour to Luis Castillo to Igor Olshansky to Haloti Ngata to Aaron Smith that converted from the DT position. I would argue that Seymour, Ngata, and Smith are difference makers for their respective defenses. In that role, like his role in the 4-3 Cover 1 that you're suggesting, he would also be an assist guy--a guy responsible for multiple gaps that would free up opportunities for LBs to shoot through gaps. The only argument I could see against Dorsey playing DE in a 3-4 is that he may be a little short, but I don't think that's a particularly big obstacle.

And DJ would actually be a pretty ideal fit for an ILB, as he has the capability to both rush the passer and drop into coverage--something that you need to do both of well in a 3-4.

I don't know if it's the best option, but it's an option and it's not a ridiculous one. Especially if the Chiefs think Dorsey could be a solid 3-4 DE which I think is a definite possibility. Especially if you can lure a guy like Wade Phillips into the coordinator position.

Kill yourself.

marty as gm cower power at coach

Hamas has already discussed one of the other obvious physical shortcomings of Dorsey as a 3-4 DE.

Short arms.

And why do you always post your thoughts in front of the posts you quote?

:clap:

ditto...except for the Chan thing.