Enough of the "close games" BS

[KCJohnny]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

1) The Dolphins didn't snatch up Jason Taylor, they traded him. They traded for Jason Ferguson.
2) Why would you want to be the Dolphins? Their ceiling is basically 10-11 wins, and they are going to get annihilated in the playoffs. Haven't you seen this script enough to know how the movie ends?

Why do people want to relive the 90's? It was a freaking failure.

I stand corrected about Taylor - but didn't they pick up 3 starters in the off season via FA?

The Dolphins are on a trajectory to win big. 1-15 followed by 11-5 followed by (possibly) 13-3. You can't always get it done in one season. The Cowboys had an 8-8 season between the 1-15 year and the playoff runs. DV was 9-23 with StL before that lightning-in-a-bottle 13-3 SB season. There were a LOT of close losses with the '98 Rams. Close losses can be indicators of a team's trajectory towards improvement or decline. Clearly the Chiefs have been in decline snce 2006. We bottomed out this year with the youth movement and losing a lot of close games. That can be an indicator of positive movement.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by KCJohnny

Close losses can be indicators of a team's trajectory towards improvement or decline.

Not really. Almost every game in the NFL is close.

You're just grasping for straws because you love Herm Edwards.

Shut the **** up and get ready to go balls-deep in the next head coach, whom you will also unequivocally love.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KCJohnny

I stand corrected about Taylor - but didn't they pick up 3 starters in the off season via FA?

The Dolphins are on a trajectory to win big. 1-15 followed by 11-5 followed by (possibly) 13-3. You can't always get it done in one season. The Cowboys had an 8-8 season between the 1-15 year and the playoff runs. DV was 9-23 with StL before that lightning-in-a-bottle 13-3 SB season. There were a LOT of close losses with the '98 Rams. Close losses can be indicators of a team's trajectory towards improvement or decline. Clearly the Chiefs have been in decline snce 2006. We bottomed out this year with the youth movement and losing a lot of close games. That can be an indicator of positive movement.

Yeah, but here is the difference--

That Rams team had a ton of talent in place for that run. I think that if Chad Pennington has proven anything over his career its that he's not the kind of guy that can carry a team. Yeah, he can manage one, but that's about it. Joey Porter can't be expected to remain a good rusher for much longer, and their secondary is nothing to write home about that.

When you combine that with the very real possibility that they lack any kind of playmakers on the outside, and you have a team that is constructed almost tit for tat like the 1990's Chiefs. Ted Ginn seems more like Az Hakim than Steve Smith, and Davone Bess may be a good slot guy, but that's not a lot of talent to really work with.

That team is coached as well as any in the league, played the NFC West 4 times, as well as the Chiefs, Broncos, Raiders, Chargers, and Texans.

They aren't going to have 8 games against the two worst divisions in football next year, and they won't face the last place teams from the year before either. To assume that they are as good as their record is to seriously overrate the strength of their schedule and the quality of the veterans that they brought in (really a bunch of recycled Parcells guys).

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Yeah, but here is the difference--

That Rams team had a ton of talent in place for that run. I think that if Chad Pennington has proven anything over his career its that he's not the kind of guy that can carry a team. Yeah, he can manage one, but that's about it. Joey Porter can't be expected to remain a good rusher for much longer, and their secondary is nothing to write home about that.

When you combine that with the very real possibility that they lack any kind of playmakers on the outside, and you have a team that is constructed almost tit for tat like the 1990's Chiefs. Ted Ginn seems more like Az Hakim than Steve Smith, and Davone Bess may be a good slot guy, but that's not a lot of talent to really work with.

That team is coached as well as any in the league, played the NFC West 4 times, as well as the Chiefs, Broncos, Raiders, Chargers, and Texans.

They aren't going to have 8 games against the two worst divisions in football next year, and they won't face the last place teams from the year before either. To assume that they are as good as their record is to seriously overrate the strength of their schedule and the quality of the veterans that they brought in (really a bunch of recycled Parcells guys).

NO MAN THEY WERE 1-15 LAST YEAR AND 11-5 THIS YEAR SO THE CHIEFS WILL DO THAT, TOO! CUS HERM IS AWESOME! THE MOST AWESOME CATHOLIC ALIVE!

[notorious]

You may have nice parts lying around, but you need the proper mechanic with the right tools to rebuild something special.


Parts = Players
Tools = Chiefsplanet posters////// J/K Coaches
Mechanic = GM

Right now our parts are questionable, our tools are Tools, and our Mechanic has yet to be determined.

[KCJohnny]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Yeah, but here is the difference--

That Rams team had a ton of talent in place for that run. I think that if Chad Pennington has proven anything over his career its that he's not the kind of guy that can carry a team. Yeah, he can manage one, but that's about it. Joey Porter can't be expected to remain a good rusher for much longer, and their secondary is nothing to write home about that.

When you combine that with the very real possibility that they lack any kind of playmakers on the outside, and you have a team that is constructed almost tit for tat like the 1990's Chiefs. Ted Ginn seems more like Az Hakim than Steve Smith, and Davone Bess may be a good slot guy, but that's not a lot of talent to really work with.

That team is coached as well as any in the league, played the NFC West 4 times, as well as the Chiefs, Broncos, Raiders, Chargers, and Texans.

They aren't going to have 8 games against the two worst divisions in football next year, and they won't face the last place teams from the year before either. To assume that they are as good as their record is to seriously overrate the strength of their schedule and the quality of the veterans that they brought in (really a bunch of recycled Parcells guys).

Good analysis. Your prognosis then is that if they play to their actual talent level and strength of schedule they go 7-9 in 2009? I can't say I agree with that. This has been Pennington's most productive season. I am not as pessimistic as you about their defense.

The only reason I brought up Miami is that they were losing a lot of really close games last year, added some key FAs and here they are playing in January. What will they do in 2009 and 2010? Who knows. Either way, the Chiefs are much younger and their defense nowhere close to where Miami's was last year. And still KC had competed in 10 of their 15 contests. If the Chiefs were not the youngest team in the NFL executing a total rebuild of their program, I would not be so optomistic. Cleveland and Cincy are 2 good examples of teams performing poorly that are not in a total rebuild mode.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by KCJohnny

The only reason I brought up Miami is that they were losing a lot of really close games last year, added some key FAs and here they are playing in January.

They also replaced their shitbag coach. Funny how you skipped over that.

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Yeah, but here is the difference--

That Rams team had a ton of talent in place for that run. I think that if Chad Pennington has proven anything over his career its that he's not the kind of guy that can carry a team. Yeah, he can manage one, but that's about it. Joey Porter can't be expected to remain a good rusher for much longer, and their secondary is nothing to write home about that.

When you combine that with the very real possibility that they lack any kind of playmakers on the outside, and you have a team that is constructed almost tit for tat like the 1990's Chiefs. Ted Ginn seems more like Az Hakim than Steve Smith, and Davone Bess may be a good slot guy, but that's not a lot of talent to really work with.

That team is coached as well as any in the league, played the NFC West 4 times, as well as the Chiefs, Broncos, Raiders, Chargers, and Texans.

They aren't going to have 8 games against the two worst divisions in football next year, and they won't face the last place teams from the year before either. To assume that they are as good as their record is to seriously overrate the strength of their schedule and the quality of the veterans that they brought in (really a bunch of recycled Parcells guys).

So you're saying that the Dolphin's improvement from 1-15 to 11-5 is a sign they're on the wrong track?...

Goddam it, you're a moron.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

So you're saying that the Dolphin's improvement from 1-15 to 11-5 is a sign they're on the wrong track?...

Goddam it, you're a moron.

I don't think that's what he's saying.

But it's a delusioned track.
#1 - you have a first year head coach who has won a lot of games largely because of a gimmick offense. I can guarantee that they won't run the wildcat next year with nearly as much success
- To that point, look at the recent history. Norv Turner, Herm Edwards, Sean Payton, Eric Mangini have taken borrowed teams to the playoffs, and then ended up not making the playoffs the next season (unless Norv backs into the playoffs, but the point still rings true). I'll be convinced of Sparano's success only if he makes the playoffs next season.

#2 - I can agree with Hamas' point as well that the Dolphins are built for short-term success. They have a QB with a long line of injuries on his resume and a star OLB/DE (Porter) who is probably on his last leg. They are a Pennington injury or a Porter retirement away to being a very average if not below average team. And both of those things could easily happen very soon.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

So you're saying that the Dolphin's improvement from 1-15 to 11-5 is a sign they're on the wrong track?...

Goddam it, you're a moron.

In short term market it isnt, but the long term they are screwed. Chiefs arent building a one year 10-6 team for once - Glad Clark isnt going to follow the Miami and KCJohnny way of thinking. He is going after the Colts or Cowboys of the 90's where you are dominate for 6 to 10 years and have a logical shot at winning the Super Bowl each year.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

In short term market it isnt, but the long term they are screwed. Chiefs arent building a one year 10-6 team for once - Glad Clark isnt going to follow the Miami and KCJohnny way of thinking. He is going after the Colts or Cowboys of the 90's where you are dominate for 6 to 10 years and have a logical shot at winning the Super Bowl each year.

I love how people around here can predict the future.

Is Miami into big $ with Pennington? No. Why is he the long term answer?Why can't they shift gears in a year or so?

Do they have salary issues? No.

Did they trade one of their best defensive players and still get better? Yes.

Will they get to the SB? Most likely not but they went from 1-15 to a possible playoff team. They didn't hurt their short term future in any way by doing it.

If they get to the SB in the next 3 years would the turn around be amazing? Your damn right it would be.

Do you have any proof that won't happen? Hell no you don't.

Would Chiefs fans be estatic with a SB on 3 years? They would about die with happiness.

Are they in better shape than KC right now? Yes, yes they are.

Are they in worse shape looking forward? No way you could say that.

Yea, Miami is going the wrong way.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

In short term market it isnt, but the long term they are screwed. Chiefs arent building a one year 10-6 team for once - Glad Clark isnt going to follow the Miami and KCJohnny way of thinking. He is going after the Colts or Cowboys of the 90's where you are dominate for 6 to 10 years and have a logical shot at winning the Super Bowl each year.

I see no signs of Clark putting together a team that can compete at the top for 6-10 years. At this point we are closer to Bengal type run of futility then we are of repeating the success of the teams you mention. Many of these young guys that we are rebuilding with should not be in our long range plans. Should we bring older guys who have proved solid but not spectacular or younger guys that will play horrible and more than likely never really get to a level in which they are going to be a positive influence on the team. IMO we brought in too many young guys hoping to catch lightning. It was clear coming into this year that our oline had deteriorated horribly. Who did we bring in to remedy that?

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by whoman69

I see no signs of Clark putting together a team that can compete at the top for 6-10 years. At this point we are closer to Bengal type run of futility then we are of repeating the success of the teams you mention. Many of these young guys that we are rebuilding with should not be in our long range plans. Should we bring older guys who have proved solid but not spectacular or younger guys that will play horrible and more than likely never really get to a level in which they are going to be a positive influence on the team. IMO we brought in too many young guys hoping to catch lightning. It was clear coming into this year that our oline had deteriorated horribly. Who did we bring in to remedy that?

Ok your thought process is totally reeruned. Older guys who suck would be better than young guys who suck? Not really. Our core is being built - Dorsey, Johnson, Bowe, Albert, Flowers maybe Hali and Carr. I dont know why you guys are harping on the Boiman's, Pat Thomas types. All these are just stop gap players and we might get lucky on one like Bradley. Thats a bonus. Its the right way to do it - this thing is being build with 2010 and beyond in mind. Also about the line - I think the addition of Albert is a pretty big step with that.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Ok your thought process is totally reeruned. Older guys who suck would be better than young guys who suck? Not really. Our core is being built - Dorsey, Johnson, Bowe, Albert, Flowers maybe Hali and Carr. I dont know why you guys are harping on the Boiman's, Pat Thomas types. All these are just stop gap players and we might get lucky on one like Bradley. Thats a bonus. Its the right way to do it - this thing is being build with 2010 and beyond in mind. Also about the line - I think the addition of Albert is a pretty big step with that.

I didn't say older guys that suck. I said older players that are solid but not spectacular. I also was not talking about our top draft picks either. The reason why I am harping on the Boiman and Thomas types is because we brought in quite a few of those type plays, and not just as a stop gap as you try to pass it off as. We had one of the worst offensive lines in the league last year. Tell me who we brought in to compete for those spots besides our top draft pick. We had Bowe and others for our receiver corps. Devard Darling was a starter and didn't have a TD reception until last week. How many players did we bring in like Bradley that didn't catch but were expected to compete for an important role on this team. I'd rather have a vet that has proven he can get the job done in a solid manner than to bring in a young guy that may strike lightning in a bottle one out of 100 times. That sounds like Pederson's draft strategy over the last decade. Too many times he reached for a second rounder like William Bartee, Kenyaron Fox, Kawika Mitchell and Junior Siavii instead of taken a player with more proven ability. What's sad is that those players I mentioned all would have been available in the 4th and 5th rounds.

[KCJohnny]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

In short term market it isnt, but the long term they are screwed. Chiefs arent building a one year 10-6 team for once - Glad Clark isnt going to follow the Miami and KCJohnny way of thinking. He is going after the Colts or Cowboys of the 90's where you are dominate for 6 to 10 years and have a logical shot at winning the Super Bowl each year.

Did you even read the thread?
I explicity referred to the Colts and Cowboys in reply #8.