ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Football If you could pick 2 strong suits of your team..what would they be? (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=234619)

petegz28 10-04-2010 07:28 PM

If you could pick 2 strong suits of your team..what would they be?
 
Poll to come...

If you could pick 2 strong suits of your team what would they be?

Sully 10-04-2010 07:29 PM

Run game
Run defense

DeezNutz 10-04-2010 07:29 PM

Franchise QB and top 10 D.

Close it. All other answers are ****ing stupid.

ChiefsCountry 10-04-2010 07:29 PM

QB and defense. thread closed.

Shogun 10-04-2010 07:30 PM

Good Defense.
Good offense.

DeezNutz 10-04-2010 07:31 PM

Rain Man should ****ing beat you for this abysmal ****ing poll.

Shogun 10-04-2010 07:31 PM

We all saw the 03 chiefs.

Good offense.
Where was our D?

WhitiE 10-04-2010 07:31 PM

ill take trent dilfer and the ravens

petegz28 10-04-2010 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sully (Post 7061797)
Run game
Run defense

We agree here

The Bad Guy 10-04-2010 07:32 PM

Can someone please take thread posting privledges from Pete?

'Hamas' Jenkins 10-04-2010 07:33 PM

The last two teams to win a Super Bowl did so with a great QB and very good/great defense (Pitt) as well as an opportunistic defense (NO)

On top of that, their opponents also had great QBs. And none of the four teams were dominant rushing teams whatsoever.

Ebolapox 10-04-2010 07:35 PM

MAKE IT ****ING STOP, PLEASE?

Psyko Tek 10-04-2010 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 7061817)
The last two teams to win a Super Bowl did so with a great QB and very good/great defense (Pitt) as well as an opportunistic defense (NO)

On top of that, their opponents also had great QBs. And none of the four teams were dominant rushing teams whatsoever.

ok offense strategies differ
but everybody agree we need a strong D

DeezNutz 10-04-2010 07:39 PM

Chiefs fans debating the relative value of the QB. I'm almost positive this was part of Dante's description of the 5th circle of hell.

the Talking Can 10-04-2010 07:40 PM

am i crazy or are these threads reeruned?

'Hamas' Jenkins 10-04-2010 07:40 PM

2007:

Indy: Meh D (played great in PS), Great QB, shit running game
Chicago: Great D, Good running game, shit QB

Indy won

2008:

NE: Shit running game, ok D, great QB
NYG: Good running game, good D, good QB

NYG won after their QB led them on an 80 yard drive with 3 minutes left, after NE had taken the lead after their QB led them on an 80+ yard drive

Az: Great QB, bad D, horrid running game
Pitt: Great QB, Great D, horrid running game

Indy: Meh D, Great QB, bad running game
NO: Opportunistic D, Great QB, meh running game.

Coogs 10-04-2010 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 7061817)
The last two teams to win a Super Bowl did so with a great QB and very good/great defense (Pitt) as well as an opportunistic defense (NO)

On top of that, their opponents also had great QBs. And none of the four teams were dominant rushing teams whatsoever.

I mentioned this last week, and think it is worth bringing up again. The NFL... like most sports... is cyclic. Defenses are being built to stop the dominate passing game. Once those defenses are all built, the trend will bend back around to the running game. And for once, it appears that our own Kansas City Chiefs could belong to the trend setting group as opposed to being nearly the last one in a long line of followers as we have been for nearly our entire history.

I still long for a franchise QB, but am content in the mean time watching what is unfolding before our eyes.

DeezNutz 10-04-2010 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs (Post 7061834)
I mentioned this last week, and think it is worth bringing up again. The NFL... like most sports... is cyclic. Defenses are being built to stop the dominate passing game. Once those defenses are all built, the trend will bend back around to the running game. And for once, it appears that our own Kansas City Chiefs could belong to the trend setting group as opposed to being nearly the last one in a long line of followers as we have been for nearly our entire history.

I still long for a franchise QB, but am content in the mean time watching what is unfolding before our eyes.

Cyclical? So it will be a return to when the franchise QB was less important? Like in the 80's or 70's?

FAX 10-04-2010 07:44 PM

The league loves the forward pass and lots of scoring so I would want to have a good defense. And, if I had my druthers, an excellent passing game. I would, however, love to be able to run the ball ... especially in the red zone.

So, I choose Strong Defense, Strong Passing, and Strong Running.

FAX

'Hamas' Jenkins 10-04-2010 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs (Post 7061834)
I mentioned this last week, and think it is worth bringing up again. The NFL... like most sports... is cyclic. Defenses are being built to stop the dominate passing game. Once those defenses are all built, the trend will bend back around to the running game. And for once, it appears that our own Kansas City Chiefs could belong to the trend setting group as opposed to being nearly the last one in a long line of followers as we have been for nearly our entire history.

I still long for a franchise QB, but am content in the mean time watching what is unfolding before our eyes.

Setting the trend by being one of the 15 teams to run a 3-4?

FWIW, I agree that it's a copycat league, but it's not necessarily a cyclical league. The league has gotten progressively more pass happy the last 50 years and the rules continue to favor the pass.

petegz28 10-04-2010 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 7061844)
Cyclical? So it will be a return to when the franchise QB was less important? Like in the 80's or 70's?

I like the idea of a franchise QB. But they also require franchise WR's to be successful.
Montana had Rice
Peyton had Harrison
Elway had Rod Smith and Sharpe
Warner had Fitzgerald, Bruce and Holt
Aikman had Irvin

etc., etc.

Granted a great QB can make an avg WR a good WR

And all of them save Peyton and Warner with AZ had elite RB's, Davis, Smith, Faulk

PornChief 10-04-2010 07:50 PM

I was hoping the options would include 'awesomeness' and 'invincibility', but I'd settle for a run game and a D.

petegz28 10-04-2010 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 7061804)
Rain Man should ****ing beat you for this abysmal ****ing poll.

:deevee:

FAX 10-04-2010 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 7061844)
Cyclical? So it will be a return to when the franchise QB was less important? Like in the 80's or 70's?

I think we once proved beyond all shadow of all doubt that scoring "first" or "early" was a major key to success in the NFL. Plus, with all the Manning Rules the league has installed in the last 5 or 6 years, the game favors the QB and the pass, that's for sure. Given all that, it makes sense that a team would want a quarterback who is accurate, has a quick release, and is, preferably, somewhat mobile.

But, if a team can get good pressure, field a solid secondary, win the field position battle (forcing long drives to score), and control the clock with the rush, you may not cancel out the pass, but you can minimize its effectiveness. It's happening more and more ... even so far in this season.

FAX

petegz28 10-04-2010 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAX (Post 7061884)
I think we once proved beyond all shadow of all doubt that scoring "first" or "early" was a major key to success in the NFL. Plus, with all the Manning Rules the league has installed in the last 5 or 6 years, the game favors the QB and the pass, that's for sure. Given all that, it makes sense that a team would want a quarterback who is accurate, has a quick release, and is, preferably, somewhat mobile.

But, if a team can get good pressure, field a solid secondary, win the field position battle (forcing long drives to score), and control the clock with the rush, you may not cancel out the pass, but you can minimize its effectiveness. It's happening more and more ... even so far in this season.

FAX

Granted last year is an exception, I think a top defense is where it all starts to getting to the SB

Buehler445 10-04-2010 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 7061796)
Franchise QB and top 10 D.

Close it. All other answers are ****ing stupid.

Milkman approves this message.
Posted via Mobile Device

Rain Man 10-04-2010 07:59 PM

#2 gives you the best chance to win, so I pick that one.

Coogs 10-04-2010 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 7061892)
Granted last year is an exception, I think a top defense is where it all starts to getting to the SB

Agreed. That and having an offense that can chew up the clock and keep the Mannings of the world parked on the sideline is the ticket to beating those type of teams. Now having a QB competent enough to drive the team to a late TD if need be would be nice... but maybe in time. :shrug:

DeezNutz 10-04-2010 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 7061861)
I like the idea of a franchise QB. But they also require franchise WR's to be successful.

And it's always best to build the offensive line before even thinking about acquiring a top QB, though I suppose we could "save" him.

'Hamas' Jenkins 10-04-2010 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs (Post 7061907)
Agreed. That and having an offense that can chew up the clock and keep the Mannings of the world parked on the sideline is the ticket to beating those type of teams.

Like the Jets and Ravens in the playoffs last year?

Coogs 10-04-2010 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 7061914)
Like the Jets and Ravens in the playoffs last year?

Yep! Just like that! ;)

JoeyChuckles 10-04-2010 08:22 PM

Pinstripe and solid black for interviews.

siberian khatru 10-04-2010 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 7061796)
Franchise QB and top 10 D.

Close it. All other answers are ****ing stupid.

This. Period.

Deberg_1990 10-04-2010 08:25 PM

Franchise TE and Franchise long snapper....thread closed.

siberian khatru 10-04-2010 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 7061999)
Franchise TE and Franchise long snapper....thread closed.

You forgot franchise fullback.

Direckshun 10-04-2010 08:27 PM

This thread's choices reminds me of when my then-girlfriend would ask me "if I was dangling off a cliff, and your mother was in the hospital in her last dying moments, would you rush over to be with her or would you try and save me?"

In other words, QB and a top 10 defense. And stop being such a goddamned nitwit.

Jewish Rabbi 10-04-2010 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy (Post 7061810)
Can someone please take posting privledges from Pete?

FYP

Chiefs Rool 10-04-2010 08:44 PM

QB and defense.

cdcox 10-04-2010 08:45 PM

Strong passing game is correlated with winning much stronger than a strong running game.

Deberg_1990 10-04-2010 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by siberian khatru (Post 7062009)
You forgot franchise fullback.

Never gets old : )



<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rZxNeFLuY98?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rZxNeFLuY98?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

el borracho 10-04-2010 09:55 PM

Well, now let's see... pretty much every dynasty had a franchise QB so I guess the answer depends on whether or not you would like to have a dynasty for numerous years and maybe win multiple Super Bowls or just a competitive team for a few years and a bunch of playoff losses.

Direckshun 10-04-2010 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 7062096)
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rZxNeFLuY98?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rZxNeFLuY98?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Fullback--

OHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

ROFLROFLROFL

DeezNutz 10-04-2010 10:03 PM

"Obviously the Jets know something that the people up here don't."

Good thing no one continues to apply that stilted logic.

Rasputin 10-04-2010 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el borracho (Post 7062391)
Well, now let's see... pretty much every dynasty had a franchise QB so I guess the answer depends on whether or not you would like to have a dynasty for numerous years and maybe win multiple Super Bowls or just a competitive team for a few years and a bunch of playoff losses.

this. Franchise QB (drafted & groomed) gives best chance for dynasty.

With play makers on both sides of the ball. sollid ST.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:08 PM.

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