What I learned this weekend

[lostcause]

a. Chiefs should have drafted Sanchez - who is now 1-0

b. We should have traded our 2011 1st rounder for Seymour - 2 sacks already tonight

c. Kyle Orton is the second coming of John Elway - 1 4th Qtr comeback in 1 start in Denver

d. The Broncos raped Denver in their trade because Cutler (4 picks) is atrocious and Orton is next to god (see second coming of Elway at c above).

e. The Chiefs can still lose me money when I bet on them getting DD points after they led midway through the 4th quarter. (See SD Chargers game last year)

[Mr. Arrowhead]

the broncos raped denver? Interesting that they have talent to rape themselves

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by lostcause

a. Chiefs should have drafted Sanchez - who is now 1-0

b. We should have traded our 2011 1st rounder for Seymour - 2 sacks already tonight

c. Kyle Orton is the second coming of John Elway - 1 4th Qtr comeback in 1 start in Denver

d. The Broncos raped Denver in their trade because Cutler (4 picks) is atrocious and Orton is next to god (see second coming of Elway at c above).

e. The Chiefs can still lose me money when I bet on them getting DD points after they led midway through the 4th quarter. (See SD Chargers game last year)

Is this multiple choice? Because E is the only right answer and A we don't know anything about until we see Cassel play.

[luv]

I'm trying to get past the part where you say Orton is the second coming.






































Still trying.

[Bearcat]

Dupe.

Pretty funny, too.

[jaa1025]

Originally Posted by lostcause

a. Chiefs should have drafted Sanchez - who is now 1-0

b. We should have traded our 2011 1st rounder for Seymour - 2 sacks already tonight

c. Kyle Orton is the second coming of John Elway - 1 4th Qtr comeback in 1 start in Denver

d. The Broncos raped Denver in their trade because Cutler (4 picks) is atrocious and Orton is next to god (see second coming of Elway at c above).

e. The Chiefs can still lose me money when I bet on them getting DD points after they led midway through the 4th quarter. (See SD Chargers game last year)

Serious or joke post because if thats what you learned then you might want to start paying attention a little better.

A) No....We had Cassell and Sanchez played good for a rookie but Im fine with a 2nd rounder for what we have.
B) Hell no...the guy is going to turn 30 next year and hasn't played a full season for the last few years. Way too many holes to fill.
C) are you freaking kidding me? That guy is the worst starter in football.
D) Still smoking crack?
E) Never bet on the team that you follow.

[lostcause]

i forget to always preface dry sarcasm by saying dry sarcasm in the op. my bad.

[Easy 6]

[LaChapelle]

I know your mother, she was dry too.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by lostcause

i forget to always preface dry sarcasm by saying dry sarcasm in the op. my bad.

I like to think of all idiotic posts as sarcastic, because if they're not, it means Chiefs fans are the dumbest, most overreacting fans in the NFL..... that said, I don't see how anyone could have gotten past c still thinking you were being serious.

[lostcause]

Originally Posted by LaChapelle

I know your mother, she was dry too.

you're stupid.

[Easy 6]

Sarcasm noted.

But any time is a good time for Benny Hill .

[LaChapelle]

Originally Posted by LaChapelle

I know your mother, she was dry too.

and cold.

[JD10367]

Going to turn this thread serious, since there are a bunch of threads on the main page which actually touch on my point and I'm too lazy to dupe-post in all of 'em....

It's very hard to tell what's "for real" when it's only Week One. What we've seen might be true indications of a team, or simply because it's, well, the first week. Players are shaking off the rust, settling into their roles. In '04 the Bills blew out New England; didn't seem to indicate how that season would go. In '07, the Giants didn't look so hot for half a year; it ended okay for them.

At first glance, it looks like the "beasts" might not be so good, and the "pushovers" better than expected. Although three lost and the fourth SHOULD have, the Chiefs, Raiders, Bills, and Broncos all put up a good fight, much better than anyone expected. On the other side of the ball, the Ravens, Chargers, and Patriots didn't look so hot. Does this mean KC, Buffalo, Oakland, and Denver are all playoff-bound? Probably not. And it probably doesn't mean that Baltimore, San Diego, and New England will have losing records.

We really can't judge things off one game. It's best to judge things in four-game sets. The Chiefs gave up a crapload of yards and points to Baltimore. Is that because Baltimore's O will be unstoppable, or is it because the Chiefs' D sucks ass? Well, let's revisit that after the next three games.

I know it sounds like fence-sitting but, really, one week does not make a basis for judging how a team will play, and how a team will end up. What you can take, as a more accurate indicator, is attitude, and flashes from certain players. But even that's not always concrete (e.g. that Buffalo/NE game in '04, where the Bills looked unstoppable and Brady looked like crap).

This week's Oakland/KC tilt looks like a good one. But whichever team wins, be it by 1 or by 40, doesn't really mean that team is that much better or worse. It's a long year.

[BigRichard]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Going to turn this thread serious, since there are a bunch of threads on the main page which actually touch on my point and I'm too lazy to dupe-post in all of 'em....

It's very hard to tell what's "for real" when it's only Week One. What we've seen might be true indications of a team, or simply because it's, well, the first week. Players are shaking off the rust, settling into their roles. In '04 the Bills blew out New England; didn't seem to indicate how that season would go. In '07, the Giants didn't look so hot for half a year; it ended okay for them.

At first glance, it looks like the "beasts" might not be so good, and the "pushovers" better than expected. Although three lost and the fourth SHOULD have, the Chiefs, Raiders, Bills, and Broncos all put up a good fight, much better than anyone expected. On the other side of the ball, the Ravens, Chargers, and Patriots didn't look so hot. Does this mean KC, Buffalo, Oakland, and Denver are all playoff-bound? Probably not. And it probably doesn't mean that Baltimore, San Diego, and New England will have losing records.

We really can't judge things off one game. It's best to judge things in four-game sets. The Chiefs gave up a crapload of yards and points to Baltimore. Is that because Baltimore's O will be unstoppable, or is it because the Chiefs' D sucks ass? Well, let's revisit that after the next three games.

I know it sounds like fence-sitting but, really, one week does not make a basis for judging how a team will play, and how a team will end up. What you can take, as a more accurate indicator, is attitude, and flashes from certain players. But even that's not always concrete (e.g. that Buffalo/NE game in '04, where the Bills looked unstoppable and Brady looked like crap).

This week's Oakland/KC tilt looks like a good one. But whichever team wins, be it by 1 or by 40, doesn't really mean that team is that much better or worse. It's a long year.

You really think the Ravens didn't look good? I thought they looked really good. There was a couple of plays that kept the Chiefs in that game. They were not necessarily fluke plays but they were not plays you can count on each game. They were the type of plays that makes a good team beat great teams. And yet we still managed to lose.

From what I saw the Chiefs are really really bad. Probably worse then last year. I hope I am wrong. But I don't think the Ravens looked bad. Their D was good and there offense looked like it had improved ten fold.