Gas on the Fire: Shutdown Corner Gives Chiefs "F" in FA.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

[keg in kc]

I used to put so much more time and energy into the Chiefs than I do now. 15 years ago I used to live and breathe every move, would know and have an opinion on everything going on. Now there's probably guys on the roster whose names I wouldn't even recognize and I don't think I've ever cared less about a draft. This a year after having absolutely no excitement or enthusiasm about either a) a new front office and coaching staff or b) a #1 pick.

I spend (much) more time in the Media Center discussing movies and tv than I do talking about the Chiefs. Which is really sad. But ultimately a lot more satisfying. Part of that is that I realized hyper-analyzing the team is really pointless, because it has absolutely no impact on the outcome of games. Sports radio is pointless, internet discussion is pointless, the only thing that actually matters (usually) happens on Sunday afternoons in the fall. But another part of that, and a not insignificant one, is that the treadmill of losing that this poorly-run organization has established has simply worn me down to the point that I just can't maintain that once insanely high level of interest. The degree of consistent failure that the Chiefs have demonstrated since I moved here in '99 is almost staggering.

It's really hard to be a fan.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

If you root for a competent organization and the Chiefs, it becomes a lot easier to distance yourself from the Chiefs, not because they lose, but because of the incompetence with which they do so and their thinly veiled contempt for their customers.

At least you've got ONE...

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by BossChief

IMO it's because this place doesn't have a large portion of its core group of A list debaters anymore.

OTWP
Mecca
Dane
Hamas (even though he does post, just not as much)
FAX
Gaz

Just to name a few...

The debates don't get taken up a few notches like they used to.

IMO at least.

Did OTWP leave for good? Damn, I missed that.

[NinerDoug]

Originally Posted by thebrad84

It seems more than obvious that the Hunt's don't care about making a superbowl run. I think Peterson tried to make it happen with the Vermeil run to give Lamar a superbowl before he died, but sans that attempt, it seems obvious that the Hunt's just see the Chief's as an investment that they are getting a great return for. They know if they keep this team at 9-7, give or take, the fans will continue to pay the absurd amount of money to fill the stadium every home game.

Nothing more frustrating than having shitty owners.

[Bewbies]

Everyone knocked Mark Cuban, but he was right. People here think they've distanced themselves from the Chiefs, but I'd be willing to bet it's the NFL as a whole.

They're everywhere, on all the time, clearly ruining the game, and people are stepping away.

It's a subtle shift, but a lot of people are doing it...

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

IF you think we are truly a DeSean Jackson, jairus Byrd, and Dietrich Smith away from winning a Super Bowl in 2 or 3 years. Because your suggestion that we can get those guys and also rebuild for three years from now just because the cap is increasing is a huge stretch.

I think those guys make us better. But not so much that I am banking on that roster to win us a Super Bowl in an ultra small window.

The idea is you get those guys now in free agnecy, and that lets you draft purely for BPA. It goes hand in hand with your draft strategy to stock up on as much talent as possible. And in doing so, you cut dead weight every year and replace it with those draft picks. It means that next year you cut guys like Daniel, Flowers, and Fasano. If you drafted right, you might even be able to save money on letting go of a Sean Smith or Mike DeVito. If you're REALLY doing it right, Tamba Hali would also get let go. And that's how you afford to keep Berry, Houston, and Alex Smith.

No, the system isn't perfect. You're going to get some sour picks and sour free agents, but the key is it grants flexibility. That's the most important part. For example, let's say we signed TJ Ward. That means there is less pressure on us to take a Calvin Pryor at 23 when potentially a player like Eric Ebron drops to our spot. Or Mike Evans. Or Darqueze Dennard. Or ****... perhaps even Teddy Bridgewater. The draft is fully of unexpected surprises, and in a deep class like this one, there will be several players that we're shocked to see still available.

If you take care of pressing needs in free agency, that means there's no pressure to take need into account when making your choices. It's the difference between the Chiefs taking Xavier Suo'Filo because they have to and taking Dee Ford or Rashede Hageman because they WANT to.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Bewbies

Everyone knocked Mark Cuban, but he was right. People here think they've distanced themselves from the Chiefs, but I'd be willing to bet it's the NFL as a whole.

They're everywhere, on all the time, clearly ruining the game, and people are stepping away.

It's a subtle shift, but a lot of people are doing it...

What have Chiefs done to "reward" KC fans' loyalty?

I'm 26 and the Chiefs have had 15 winning seasons in that span. Only five of those seasons came since the year 2000 and a 3-11 record in the postseason.

And it's not like KC is the only fanbase that follows a mediocre team. Cleveland and Detroit are worse. The Jets have sucked outside of their defensive runs carrying Mark Sanchez. Jacksonville and Tennessee haven't done anything since 1999. Cincinnati is just a step higher than the Chiefs "success" wise. Miami and Buffalo get to be fisted by New England on regular occasions. Dallas is a perennial 8-8 team with the hype of Montana-era 9ers... Some of the same goes to the Bears. The Vikings would've been moved to LA had it not been for the Favre years and Adrian Peterson.

The NFL has been a Patriots / Packers / Steelers / Colts (Peyton Manning) / NFC East-flavor-of-the-week league for the better part of the decade. It looks to be transitioning to a 49ers / Seahawks / Panthers / Colts league owing to their young, marketable stars. It would be really no wonder if interest wanes because all of the other franchises not mentioned above aren't relevant nationwide or to the echo chambers that are ESPN and the NFL Network -especially when you figure out that a lot of these teams have outright sucked for the developmental years of the kids my age or younger: it leads to them being "bandwagon" fans loosely tied to a team that's probably not in their region or caring more on fantasy football.

But coming back to the Chiefs... They've been mediocre at best for almost two decades outside of a handful of seasons where they play exciting ball in the regular season only to get bounced in their first game of the playoffs. Depending on who you ask, they're still at the same competitive level as they were last season or they've actively gotten worse. And they're facing a tougher schedule alignment from drawing the NFC West and AFC East along with being in the awesome spot of being in the division with two other playoff teams last season who swept the Chiefs.

There's really no reason for a team to be overly excited about the team's prospects in the next two seasons when you factor in the age of the team's stars and the moves that haven't been made to get ready for their departure.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by SNR

The idea is you get those guys now in free agnecy, and that lets you draft purely for BPA. It goes hand in hand with your draft strategy to stock up on as much talent as possible. And in doing so, you cut dead weight every year and replace it with those draft picks. It means that next year you cut guys like Daniel, Flowers, and Fasano. If you drafted right, you might even be able to save money on letting go of a Sean Smith or Mike DeVito. If you're REALLY doing it right, Tamba Hali would also get let go. And that's how you afford to keep Berry, Houston, and Alex Smith.

No, the system isn't perfect. You're going to get some sour picks and sour free agents, but the key is it grants flexibility. That's the most important part. For example, let's say we signed TJ Ward. That means there is less pressure on us to take a Calvin Pryor at 23 when potentially a player like Eric Ebron drops to our spot. Or Mike Evans. Or Darqueze Dennard. Or ****... perhaps even Teddy Bridgewater. The draft is fully of unexpected surprises, and in a deep class like this one, there will be several players that we're shocked to see still available.

If you take care of pressing needs in free agency, that means there's no pressure to take need into account when making your choices. It's the difference between the Chiefs taking Xavier Suo'Filo because they have to and taking Dee Ford or Rashede Hageman because they WANT to.

But thats not the way it works. Because if you're all in to win now, people will complain if the chiefs draft a guy who doesn't fill an immediate need. The strategy should be to draft, give young guys a shot, and then use free agency to fill in the gaps. The only reason you're putting pressure on the chiefs to draft a safety is because you're convinced they have to win now.

The chiefs don't need a pass rusher. They don't need a QB right away . but if these guys are the bpa , you take them. I would rather the chiefs draft without caring about who fills an immediate need.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The chiefs don't need a pass rusher. They don't need a QB right away . but if these guys are the bpa , you take them. I would rather the chiefs draft without caring about who fills an immediate need.

Surely... You watched the games after Hali and Houston were out?

Even then, remember how the 2007 Giants beat New England? They had three guys capable of getting after the QB on any given snap.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

But thats not the way it works. Because if you're all in to win now, people will complain if the chiefs draft a guy who doesn't fill an immediate need. The strategy should be to draft, give young guys a shot, and then use free agency to fill in the gaps. The only reason you're putting pressure on the chiefs to draft a safety is because you're convinced they have to win now.

The chiefs done need a pass rusher. They don't need a QB right away . but if these guys are the big, you take them. I would rather the chiefs draft without caring about who fills an immediate need.

That's why you spend a little bit of money to bring in a free safety like Ward or even Clemons. Or you re-sign Schwartz or bring in Dietrich-Smith. It's called hedging your bets.

It's just two spots. Only two. We could have filled them cheaply with free agents, and then it wouldn't really matter who we selected in the first. Nobody would bitch about drafting an OLB, QB, CB, or DL for depth at least in his rookie year.

People blow their stacks when the team leaves gaping holes in the roster or fills trivial needs like G with 1st round picks. That's what gets them pissed off.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by SNR

That's why you spend a little bit of money to bring in a free safety like Ward or even Clemons. Or you re-sign Schwartz or bring in Dietrich-Smith. It's called hedging your bets.

It's just two spots. Only two. We could have filled them cheaply with free agents, and then it wouldn't really matter who we selected in the first. Nobody would bitch about drafting an OLB, QB, CB, or DL for depth at least in his rookie year.

People blow their stacks when the team leaves gaping holes in the roster or fills trivial needs like G with 1st round picks. That's what gets them pissed off.

Then they should also not freak out if we choose to not pay money for trivial holes. I agree, I would flip out if they draft an interior lineman with a high pick. But based on what Schneider and ted Thompson have done, they seem to like filling that late in the draft. It's why I don't get the bashing of comp picks. That is exactly the territory to look for these role guys.

And I disagree... When you have a win now strategy, this team feels forced to draft on need versus bpa. What if we got Byrd and a stud free safety was bpa for our top pick? We wouldn't draft one. It's one of the reasons why I say, if you want to go all in, be careful what you wish for.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

What have Chiefs done to "reward" KC fans' loyalty?

I'm 26 and the Chiefs have had 15 winning seasons in that span. Only five of those seasons came since the year 2000 and a 3-11 record in the postseason.

And it's not like KC is the only fanbase that follows a mediocre team. Cleveland and Detroit are worse. The Jets have sucked outside of their defensive runs carrying Mark Sanchez. Jacksonville and Tennessee haven't done anything since 1999. Cincinnati is just a step higher than the Chiefs "success" wise. Miami and Buffalo get to be fisted by New England on regular occasions. Dallas is a perennial 8-8 team with the hype of Montana-era 9ers... Some of the same goes to the Bears. The Vikings would've been moved to LA had it not been for the Favre years and Adrian Peterson.

The NFL has been a Patriots / Packers / Steelers / Colts (Peyton Manning) / NFC East-flavor-of-the-week league for the better part of the decade. It looks to be transitioning to a 49ers / Seahawks / Panthers / Colts league owing to their young, marketable stars. It would be really no wonder if interest wanes because all of the other franchises not mentioned above aren't relevant nationwide or to the echo chambers that are ESPN and the NFL Network -especially when you figure out that a lot of these teams have outright sucked for the developmental years of the kids my age or younger: it leads to them being "bandwagon" fans loosely tied to a team that's probably not in their region or caring more on fantasy football.

But coming back to the Chiefs... They've been mediocre at best for almost two decades outside of a handful of seasons where they play exciting ball in the regular season only to get bounced in their first game of the playoffs. Depending on who you ask, they're still at the same competitive level as they were last season or they've actively gotten worse. And they're facing a tougher schedule alignment from drawing the NFC West and AFC East along with being in the awesome spot of being in the division with two other playoff teams last season who swept the Chiefs.

There's really no reason for a team to be overly excited about the team's prospects in the next two seasons when you factor in the age of the team's stars and the moves that haven't been made to get ready for their departure.

Throw into the mix all the goofy things the NFL is doing to "protect the league" needed or made up (by a group of well-meaning lawyers who need to cover their butts), and the league is getting harder for true football fans to enjoy. There will be other who replace us, but overall the true "smash mouth" football fan is having their version of fun replaced with something else.

So while the Chiefs own their own level of fault in losing some of their loyal fan-base, in many ways the league isn't helping the larger cause. But alas, the Chiefs have a market that has around 80K football fans who have little other to do for those 8-10 days a year, and some cash to burn.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Then they should also not freak out if we choose to not pay money for trivial holes. I agree, I would flip out if they draft an interior lineman with a high pick. But based on what Schneider and ted Thompson have done, they seem to like filling that late in the draft. It's why I don't get the bashing of comp picks. That is exactly the territory to look for these role guys.

And I disagree... When you have a win now strategy, this team feels forced to draft on need versus bpa. What if we got Byrd and a stud free safety was bpa for our top pick? We wouldn't draft one. It's one of the reasons why I say, if you want to go all in, be careful what you wish for.

If this team signed a FS, when our pick comes up, if Ha Ha Clintom Dix and Odell Beckham Jr are sitting there, then you have the flexibility to select Beckham Jr, because you have the gaping hole at FS already fixed.

If you haven't already filled that gaping hole, then regardless of strategy, be it win now or building for the future, you simply do not have that flexibility.

Drafting that safety both builds to the future and fills that gaping hole that can not simply be ignored in either strategy.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by SNR

That's why you spend a little bit of money to bring in a free safety like Ward or even Clemons. Or you re-sign Schwartz or bring in Dietrich-Smith. It's called hedging your bets.

It's just two spots. Only two. We could have filled them cheaply with free agents, and then it wouldn't really matter who we selected in the first. Nobody would bitch about drafting an OLB, QB, CB, or DL for depth at least in his rookie year.

People blow their stacks when the team leaves gaping holes in the roster or fills trivial needs like G with 1st round picks. That's what gets them pissed off.

The good news is (unless they're super-stupid!), the Chiefs are lurking on the board and reading all of this. But even if they are, I doubt they'll have the intellectual capacity to do anything about it (the whole desire to win deal spilling over into 1 Arrowhead Way's work ethic), but I suspect they're reading it and heading back into their meetings saying, "don't worry boss everything is fine, your Kingdom loves you, sleep well Sire nobody will hurt your profits tonight as I will be standing guard on the wall!" Then they put a call into Mr. Hy-Vee and Mr. Price Chopper, and tell them they might need to buy a few more $5 tickets" to claim their desired number of sell-outs.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by milkman

If this team signed a FS, when our pick comes up, if Ha Ha Clintom Dix and Odell Beckham Jr are sitting there, then you have the flexibility to select Beckham Jr, because you have the gaping hole at FS already fixed.

If you haven't already filled that gaping hole, then regardless of strategy, be it win now or building for the future, you simply do not have that flexibility.

Drafting that safety both builds to the future and fills that gaping hole that can not simply be ignored in either strategy.

That's fine. You think we are a few pieces away. I don't think we are. We don't have depth which can only be built in the draft. We have too many holes in role positions which I would love to fill in the back of the draft. At times we are relying on average players in key positions like DeVito, when the draft should be finding you playmakers to fill that spot. And we are really overrating how critical some of our core guys are. Houston and Hali, yes. Dj and Flowers, very replaceable. I get that we can draft and make some free agent moves at the same time. But we really make it much harder to extend our window past a few years.

We almost beat an indy team that got whalloped in the second round by a team that is even better this year and didn't even win the conference. I think we are a good team and I get why people's concerns about our draft history creates urgency to win now. But sorry, I think the win now strategy only sets us up for disappointment and a guaranteed collapse by year 3. Just my personal opinion.