Chiefs Chiefs score less than 200 this season. - Page 4

Logical · 05-27-2008, 09:25 PM

I bet one of my Charger fan lunch companions that the Chiefs would not score 200 points this season.

So what do you think will he be buying me lunch?

keg in kc · 05-28-2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by little jacob

i think adding dorsey and losing allen is still a net gain

Blasphemy!!

Although I completely agree with you.

Simply Red · 05-28-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

Your doc give you a script for the left handed smokes?

We scored 226 last year...

Was that including pos------------------------?

oh, that's right.

Rudy tossed tigger's salad · 05-28-2008, 04:12 PM

I think 300 points is pretty likely. Our Defense will suck pretty bad and we'll average a lot of points per game in the 4th quarter alone scoring on soft defenses in hurry up. 300 points wont translate to wins though.

Logical · 05-28-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truebigdog

He HAS an offensive philosophy???

Of course, don't score too fast because it will put your defense on the field.

Logical · 05-28-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stryker

Look on the bright side. You can bet your $4k + in the sports betting section of the casino on NO to the Chiefs scoring 300 pts this season and get your money back!

Hey can you do that, that sounds like a great idea. A ChiefsPlanet sportsbook.

beach tribe · 05-28-2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Blasphemy!!

Although I completely agree with you.

That's actually a moot point. We were getting Dorsey either way.

Is losing allen,(paired with Dorsey) and gaining the players that we aquired with the picks a net gain?

We'll see. Doubtful.

Dorsey, and Allen would have been......sigh.

And I still believe we could have signed Allen with the same protections the Vikes recieved. Carl just did not want to pay him period.

keg in kc · 05-28-2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

That's actually a moot point. We were getting Dorsey either way.

I said it on draft day and I haven't changed my mind: without the 2nd first rounder, we either take Albert at 5 or try to trade down and take him later. We don't take Dorsey, and there's an absolute meltdown here when it happens. The extra pick for Allen is the only reason Dorsey's a Chief now. In my opinion.

beach tribe · 05-28-2008, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I said it on draft day and I haven't changed my mind: without the 2nd first rounder, we either take Albert at 5 or try to trade down and take him later. We don't take Dorsey, and there's an absolute meltdown here when it happens. The extra pick for Allen is the only reason Dorsey's a Chief now. In my opinion.

Nope. No way we pass up Dorsey at 5. I think we trade up into the first, and grab a lineman, or we get one later. No one is dumb enough(not even Carl) to pass up the best player in the draft at 5, and I think the rest of our draft(staying true to our board) is proof of that.

beach tribe · 05-28-2008, 06:19 PM

No one thought Dorsey would fall to us. If there was any way we would pass on him, we would have accepted NO's lucrative offer.

keg in kc · 05-28-2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

Nope. No way we pass up Dorsey at 5. I think we trade up into the first, and grab a lineman, or we get one later. No one is dumb enough(not even Carl) to pass up the best player in the draft at 5, and I think the rest of our draft(staying true to our board) is proof of that.

I don't think it would have been a dumb move, first of all -- in that situation -- to trade down (it would have been a dumb move to trade down when Dorsey was sitting there and we had 17). But without the Allen trade, all we have is #5, one second, and one third. That's not enough ammo to make any sort of upward move back into the first, not without sacrificing 2009's draft to do it. Moving down is the much, much smarter play in that situation. We needed both quantity and quality from this draft. That's part of the reason I believe we'd have done that.

And it's not really a matter of Dorsey and Allen (let's say they take Dorsey, as you believe and I do not...) versus Dorsey and Albert, anyway. It's Dorsey and Allen versus Dorsey and Albert and Charles and Morgan. Or if they sacrifice their 2nd, 3rd and some other group of picks to move up for a tackle, let's say it's Allen, Dorsey and, from Houston at 26, Duane Brown from VPI. Instead of Dorsey, Albert, Flowers, Charles, Cottam and Morgan.

I'll take what we got. The Allen trade got us this draft, whether it got us Glenn Dorsey or not (which I believe it did).

And I would trade Allen straight up for Dorsey 7 days a week a twice on Sunday. Even though he hasn't played a down in the NFL. Elite defensive tackles are rare. Pass rushing defensive ends are not.

beach tribe · 05-28-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I don't think it would have been a dumb move, first of all -- in that situation -- to trade down (it would have been a dumb move to trade down when Dorsey was sitting there and we had 17). But without the Allen trade, all we have is #5, one second, and one third. That's not enough ammo to make any sort of upward move back into the first, not without sacrificing 2009's draft to do it. Moving down is the much, much smarter play in that situation. We needed both quantity and quality from this draft. That's part of the reason I believe we'd have done that.

And it's not really a matter of Dorsey and Allen (let's say they take Dorsey, as you believe and I do not...) versus Dorsey and Albert, anyway. It's Dorsey and Allen versus Dorsey and Albert and Charles and Morgan. Or if they sacrifice their 2nd, 3rd and some other group of picks to move up for a tackle, let's say it's Allen, Dorsey and, from Houston at 26, Duane Brown from VPI. Instead of Dorsey, Albert, Flowers, Charles, Cottam and Morgan.

I'll take what we got. The Allen trade got us this draft, whether it got us Glenn Dorsey or not (which I believe it did).

And I would trade Allen straight up for Dorsey 7 days a week a twice on Sunday. Even though he hasn't played a down in the NFL. Elite defensive tackles are rare. Pass rushing defensive ends are not.

I would take Dorsey as well, any day of the week, but in my mind, I believe they would have either taken Dorsey, which would have given us a terrifying D-line, or they would have accepted NOs offer, and we would be looking at Ellis, Allen, and I believe another second, and another first, and maybe a second in 2009(I can't remember) in next years draft. Or we would have used the picks we got from NO to trade up, and we'd be looking at Allen, Ellis, and Albert. OR we use the picks we would have gotten, and next year went after Oher with the picks we aquired. Don't get me wrong, I like what transpired. I just don't think we would have passed on Dorsey.
I'm happy with what we got, I just don't think we can ask whether we would rather have Dorsey, or Allen, because I believe we would have them both.

Logical · 05-28-2008, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I said it on draft day and I haven't changed my mind: without the 2nd first rounder, we either take Albert at 5 or try to trade down and take him later. We don't take Dorsey, and there's an absolute meltdown here when it happens. The extra pick for Allen is the only reason Dorsey's a Chief now. In my opinion.

Agreed, sucks but that is just the way it works.

whoman69 · 05-28-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KcMizzou

Yep... sucker bet.

Free lunch.

Its possible. We have three guys starting on the line that we are crossing our fingers over. We've added no depth at any of the skill positions. Having said that, its not going to be Croyle's fault.

milkman · 05-29-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ill-Logical

I used to be an optimist until I spent from 1975 to the present being dissappointed over and over by the Chiefs.

I've gone the same way, but I think you crossed the line from negativity over into downright stupidity.

milkman · 05-29-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truebigdog

He HAS an offensive philosophy???

I've started to call it the Hermeroid offense, and I'm hoping it catches on.

05-27-2008, 09:25 PM
Logical Screw U if U can't take a joke Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	Chiefs score less than 200 this season. I bet one of my Charger fan lunch companions that the Chiefs would not score 200 points this season. So what do you think will he be buying me lunch?
Posts: 31,579

05-28-2008, 04:12 PM	#48
Rudy tossed tigger's salad Better than Nelson Join Date: Mar 2003 Casino cash: $10000400	I think 300 points is pretty likely. Our Defense will suck pretty bad and we'll average a lot of points per game in the 4th quarter alone scoring on soft defenses in hurry up. 300 points wont translate to wins though. Last edited by Rudy tossed tigger's salad; 05-28-2008 at 04:20 PM..
Posts: 17,356

05-28-2008, 06:19 PM	#54
beach tribe Keep doubting J MFing Houston Join Date: May 2007 Location: ft.lauderdale Casino cash: $3878036	No one thought Dorsey would fall to us. If there was any way we would pass on him, we would have accepted NO's lucrative offer.
Posts: 21,429