ChiefsPlanet
Page 9 of 11 « First 5678 9 1011
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Allen is going to outsack the Chiefs (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=198791)

Coach 08-17-2009 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5980713)
Oh, puhleese.

The Ravens won the Super Bowl because of their defense. JFC. Tampa Bay, same thing. The Giants? Defense. The Colts actually? Defense.

Max Starks? LMAO

Max Starks is a ****ing bozo. And Matt Light is NOT a "Franchise" left tackle. The guy is solid but he was a freakin' 5th rounder.

The Patriots didn't build their team or offensive line around Matt Light.
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess Jonathan Odgen isn't considered a "Franchise" LT in your own words?

Oh, and check your facts. Matt Light was a 2nd rounder, 48th pick overall.

DaneMcCloud 08-17-2009 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedThat (Post 5980757)
That all comes down to balance.

why didn't the Chiefs win? well, many could argue that in the 90's they had John Alt yes, great defense yes, but, Marty schottenheimer couldn't win because he was so damn conservative and predictable on offense, afraid to take risks which is always a bad thing because that does nothing but make the oppositions job alot easier and knowing what youre gonna do.

Very few conservative teams win. In the playoffs it usually ends up being a bad thing.

Same thing about Vermeils teams. willie roaf heck of player, john tait solid player. great offenses..but why didn't we win? because the defenses were terrible. we couldnt stop anyone worth a damn. conservative defenses, "bend but don't break"..."Play back so we don't give up the big play"...."give the teams what they can get underneath, and hope for a turnover."

*Again, it comes down to balance. You still have to be pretty solid at every position, and things gotta be "right"
It's going to be extremely difficult to win in the playoffs, let alone the Super Bowl, without at least one game-changing defensive player.

Look across the league, from the Ravens to the Giants to the Steelers and so on. All of these teams have a Franchise QB, a good left tackle and a guy(s) that teams have to game plan for each and every week.

People here quote the Dolphins & Falcons success last year and hope the Chiefs can emulate that success. The problem is that both Miami & Atlanta had a guy that put up in excess of 16 sacks.

The Chiefs don't have that and until they have one or two guys that put up double digits, they won't compete for a Super Bowl.

Valiant 08-17-2009 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5980735)
"Solid" is one thing.

"Franchise" is another.

For all these people that don't get it, the Chiefs had Willie Roaf, John Tait and John Alt in the past and never won a goddamn thing. So it goes both ways went bringing up Derrick Thomas.
Yeah, so they had best of both worlds and still could not do it you ignorant twit.. That does not go both ways, it only hurts your point.. It still took a franchise QB to get them to the afc championship game..

DeezNutz 08-17-2009 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan (Post 5980758)
He's just too used to watching Chiefs QB's that aren't worth protecting.
And the counter-argument is that Chiefs fans are too used to nutting themselves over O-line play, to the point of utter stupidity.

For example, how many people argued that we should take a RT, a right mother****ing tackle, with the #3 overall pick?

Here's the bottom line, if you get one LT and one pass rusher and you know that one can be only serviceable and one can be elite, the choice should be obvious: an elite pass rusher is a game changer, whereas an elite LT is a luxury.

As milkman has said several times, give me a franchise QB and a top ten D, and I'll show you a successful team.

Coach 08-17-2009 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5980735)
"Solid" is one thing.

"Franchise" is another.

For all these people that don't get it, the Chiefs had Willie Roaf, John Tait and John Alt in the past and never won a goddamn thing. So it goes both ways went bringing up Derrick Thomas.
Well, the Chiefs had Derrick Thomas, Neil Smith, and a great defense, they never won either.

DaneMcCloud 08-17-2009 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach (Post 5980774)
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess Jonathan Odgen isn't considered a "Franchise" LT in your own words?
The Ravens could have had just about anyone at left tackle that year. The defense set a record for points scored.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach (Post 5980774)
Oh, and check your facts. Matt Light was a 2nd rounder, 48th pick overall.
My bad.

I still don't view him as a "Franchise Left Tackle". He's good, he's solid and he's reliable.

But he's not a "Franchise" guy.

RedThat 08-17-2009 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valiant (Post 5980766)
Yep, your right that one individually player won the championship you ignorant douchebag..

Douche mccloud "franchise pass rusher > franchise QB"

****ing dumb ass... I like how you down-graded franchise pass rusher to just outstanding to try and win a point..

New England has never had a franchise Pass Rusher during their runs.. Just a dominant defense overall.. No JA or DT type player that you said is required to be there, but of course you will spin this some how like you always do because you are in fact a franchise douche bag..

Think I will go download some movies to piss the industry off and lose Dane some money..
I'll always say, and I won't exclude the importance of any position in football, to be a world champion in football, you have to have all the elements in place.

Your team has to be well balanced and solid on both sides of the ball. And you have to have solid players at all positions.

DeezNutz 08-17-2009 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach (Post 5980785)
Well, the Chiefs had Derrick Thomas, Neil Smith, and a great defense, they never won either.
No QB.

With few exceptions, a team needs a franchise QB.

DaneMcCloud 08-17-2009 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valiant (Post 5980780)
Yeah, so they had best of both worlds and still could not do it you ignorant twit.. That does not go both ways, it only hurts your point.. It still took a franchise QB to get them to the afc championship game..
No one said that you could win a Super Bowl without a Franchise QB, numbnuts. Especially in today's NFL.

As matter of fact, I've been arguing that (as have a few others) this ****ing entire offseason.

And there are some mother****ing dumbshit members that don't think that Roethlisber is a "Franchise QB".

Unbelievable.

Coach 08-17-2009 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5980786)
The Ravens could have had just about anyone at left tackle that year. The defense set a record for points scored.



My bad.

I still don't view him as a "Franchise Left Tackle". He's good, he's solid and he's reliable.

But he's not a "Franchise" guy.
Well, I would have to respectfully disagree with you on that Matt Light is a franchise LT. The fact that he was the starting LT in 12 of the 14 games in his rookie year, the year where NE had 112.2 yards per game.

He was part of offensive line at left tackle that led the way for 133 yards on 25 carries (5.3 average) in the Patriots 20-17 victory in Super Bowl XXXVI over the St. Louis Rams. He was named to the Football News 2001 NFL All-Rookie Team in 2001.

In Super Bowl XXXVIII, he was instrumental in the Patriots' success against the Carolina Panthers' pass rush; the Patriots did not allow a sack to a very effective defensive line that featured Kris Jenkins, Mike Rucker, Brentson Buckner and Julius Peppers.

I just think he doesn't get the recongition that he deserves to get to be considered one of the top LT's in today's football.

DeezNutz 08-17-2009 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5980794)
No one said that you could win a Super Bowl without a Franchise QB, numbnuts. Especially in today's NFL.

As matter of fact, I've been arguing that (as have a few others) this ****ing entire offseason.

And there are some mother****ing dumbshit members that don't think that Roethlisberger is a "Franchise QB".

Unbelievable.
If I could start an expansion team today and select one player off of any team, Roethlisberger might well be my selection.

Coach 08-17-2009 09:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 5980792)
No QB.

With few exceptions, a team needs a franchise QB.
That, and we didn't really have a "great playoff" coach on top of it.

Still though, had things been different, the 95 or 97 Chiefs team would had been the exception to the rule.

I guess it just wasn't meant to be.

DeezNutz 08-17-2009 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach (Post 5980802)
That, and we didn't really have a "great playoff" coach on top of it.

Still though, had things been different, the 95 or 97 Chiefs team would had been the exception to the rule.

I guess it just wasn't meant to be.
I really think the '95 team could have and should have won the whole ****ing thing.

That was a team that had the defensive capabilities of matching up against Dallas.

RedThat 08-17-2009 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5980777)
It's going to be extremely difficult to win in the playoffs, let alone the Super Bowl, without at least one game-changing defensive player.

Look across the league, from the Ravens to the Giants to the Steelers and so on. All of these teams have a Franchise QB, a good left tackle and a guy(s) that teams have to game plan for each and every week.

People here quote the Dolphins & Falcons success last year and hope the Chiefs can emulate that success. The problem is that both Miami & Atlanta had a guy that put up in excess of 16 sacks.

The Chiefs don't have that and until they have one or two guys that put up double digits, they won't compete for a Super Bowl.
won't disagree with you there Dane. we had that kinda player in JA but he wanted out. I won't blame the Chiefs for losing JA, because i understand it's the nature of the business, sometimes players can become unhappy and want out.

we have no other choice but to rebuild again, and hope Pioli and co..can find that "game changing type of player", especially on defense because i can't find anybody on this current roster thats capable of doing that. Its gonna take time, alot of patience, and some luck. We could use some of that to come our way. This team is rebuilding and its project that is currently under construction as we speak. Lets just be grateful we hired a man in Scott pioli who came from a winning organization and is capable of doing the job imo. Best move Chiefs made imo.

RedThat 08-17-2009 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach (Post 5980798)
Well, I would have to respectfully disagree with you on that Matt Light is a franchise LT. The fact that he was the starting LT in 12 of the 14 games in his rookie year, the year where NE had 112.2 yards per game.

He was part of offensive line at left tackle that led the way for 133 yards on 25 carries (5.3 average) in the Patriots 20-17 victory in Super Bowl XXXVI over the St. Louis Rams. He was named to the Football News 2001 NFL All-Rookie Team in 2001.

In Super Bowl XXXVIII, he was instrumental in the Patriots' success against the Carolina Panthers' pass rush; the Patriots did not allow a sack to a very effective defensive line that featured Kris Jenkins, Mike Rucker, Brentson Buckner and Julius Peppers.

I just think he doesn't get the recongition that he deserves to get to be considered one of the top LT's in today's football.
Oh I agree. Matt light is a very underrated OT. He deserves some consideration imo to be classified in the "top 10" Ot's in the game.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:12 PM.
Page 9 of 11 « First 5678 9 1011
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.