Originally Posted by beach tribe (Post 10962364)

With your record you probably shouldn't be thinking.

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 10962361)

Fifth, Dorsey has definitely done something to deserve skepticism: he selected Eric Fisher #1 overall. Unless Fisher turns into a reliable, Pro Bowl talent, he's going to deserve shit tons of second guessing by skeptical fans. Period.

Originally Posted by J Diddy (Post 10962374)

I don't see how you could knock the pick outside of not wanting a LT 1 overall. It's not like Eric Fisher was some obscure nobody prior to the draft.

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 10962384)

Because if you've got the #1 overall pick, it needs to land. You cannot win Super Bowls if your #1 overall pick busts.

At this point, we don't even know if Fisher will land. And until he does, Dorsey has made a hugely controversial move there.

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 10962384)

Because if you've got the #1 overall pick, it needs to land. You cannot win Super Bowls if your #1 overall pick busts.

At this point, we don't even know if Fisher will land. And until he does, Dorsey has made a hugely controversial move there.

Originally Posted by mcaj22 (Post 10962398)

Dorsey did screw himself by not extending Houston prior to the season. That was playing with fire giving Alex the contract before Houston.

Alex's rate wasn't going to change. Now you're going to have to pay Houston the absolute top dollar as the best OLB in the game.

Originally Posted by Superturtle (Post 10962406)

Controversial? Wasn't it pretty much set in stone before the draft that he was going to us at 1 overall? Tyson Jackson was a controversial pick. Fisher wasn't.

Originally Posted by J Diddy (Post 10962413)

DRAFT ANALYSIS:
"When I put my Top 100 out there, he was the first name on the list, which tells you how strongly I feel about him. He's a Pro Bowl left tackle." -- Mike Mayock

How is that controversial outside of the geno wanting draftubators?

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 10896950)

It is very, very early in John Dorsey's tenure here, but unless the talent he's acquired magically turns it around by midpoint of the season, I believe we should be shopping for a new GM by the end of the season.

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 10896950)

I'm willing to change my tune, as I always am, if some of this plan looks to be solid for the future, and not just for the present, by the middle of the season. But it would have to be a dramatic shift for me to feel that way.

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 11061701)

I was going to wait until the actual midpoint of the season, but since next week's game against the Jets isn't going to tell us anything, I might as well revisit this now. I was dead serious in the OP, and remain serious now in my re-assessment.

I'm going to highlight the key premises of the OP:





I don't think you could argue that the shift from Titans-game Chiefs to the Chiefs right now is anything less than dramatic. Not only does the team look disciplined, smart, athletic, with a great foundation for future years in place, its replacements to the departed free agents, it's depth to replace injuries, and even the new talents we all feared would struggle (Fisher, Parker, Gaines -- WTF??) have all turned around and made this team a deep, talented roster, and a very young one with lots of room to grow.

Following all the departing free agents, I felt that the Chiefs, if built perfectly, could compete for a title as soon as 2016. I radically underestimated how well Reid would adjust his offense and Sutton would adjust his defense. I think, with a couple more pieces, this team is competing for a title next season.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 11061705)

Some things never change. You're as ****ing clueless about personnel and the NFL as ever before.

Good ****ing grief.