Chiefs At the Quarter Mark: Better or Worse? - Page 14

**OnTheWarpath15** · 05:47 PM

After the Haley hire, you couldn't throw a stick through this place without hitting someone that made the following comment:

"We'll be a better team based on coaching alone," or, "we'll win X amount of games due to coaching alone."

Yes, it's only been 4 games, and this is NOT a call for Haley's head - but is deserved criticism of the way he's prepared this team over the first 4 games of the regular season.

Also, IN NO WAY is the following an endorsement of Herman Edwards. What it is, however, is a giant red flag - this team - of which 60% has been handpicked by Pioli and Haley - is actually worse in almost all statistical categories when compared to the 2008 team after 4 games - which many here claimed were the darkest days of last season. We'll call it, B.S. - or, Before Spread.

Offensively (bolded number is 2009 totals):

1st downs: (63) (62)

3rd down conversions: (25/62 - 40%) (9/51 - 18%)

Total yards: (1145) (986)

Rushing yards: (554) (406)

Passing yards: (591) (580)

Sacks Allowed: (12) (13)

Penalties/Yardage: (10/109) 29/230

Scoring: (16.25 PPG) (16 PPG)

Not a single category in which we've improved over 2008, which happened to include going through 3 QB's - playing the 3rd stringer in 2 of the 4.

Defensively:

1st downs allowed: (74) (85)

3rd down conversions against: (25/54 - 46%) (25/58 - 43%)

Total yards allowed: (1517) (1516)

Rushing yards allowed: (706) (514)

Passing yards allowed: (811) (1002)

Sacks: (3) (5)

Points allowed: (24.25 PPG) (28 PPG)

Turnover margin: (+2) (Even)

Yea! 2 more sacks! And nice to see the 192 yard improvement from the rush defense, only to see 191 of it be given back up by the pass defense.

The 2008 team was apparently so bad that management felt the need to purge 30 players, yet is playing worse with a roster that is 60% their handpicked players?

What message are you trying to send, Todd? It seems like it changes on a weekly ****ing basis.

As someone who predicted a 3 win season, the losses aren't surprising me.

The way we are losing, after hearing the phrase, "we're going to be a big, strong, fast, smart, tough, disciplined football team" IS surprising me.

There is no improvement over the "Dark Ages" of last season in ANY of those areas. And there's no excuse for it, especially the lack of discipline. Make 'em run some more, Todd - it seems to be working...

Enough excuses - enough with the "messages" - enough petty bullshit sitting players - time to see some ****ing improvement. Not necessarily wins.

IMPROVEMENT.

**the Talking Can** · 10-06-2009, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Nice to see that TheTalkingGoebbels still has the reading comprehension of a Fragile X child.

dude, you totally got me...and you didn't even have to post that one gif you post in every post either....good job, dude...

**SAUTO** · 10-06-2009, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Jason, I don't give a **** about "other people".

If you're going to bash someone, back it up.

dane i wouldnt bash you. but i do recall your posts about this being the LEAST talented team in football. many in fact. who was responsible for that? herm and carl. the blame falls on both

Reerun_KC · 10-06-2009, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

So did Vermeil.

2001 & 2002: 14-18

2006 & 2007: 13-19

Are you bitching about a one game difference or are you bitching about Year 3, when he was finally allowed to blow shit the **** up?

And he blew this franchise the **** up!

Vermiel started planting the bombs, Herm pushed the button...

**SAUTO** · 10-06-2009, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Jason, I don't give a **** about "other people".

If you're going to bash someone, back it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Dude, you're preaching to the pastor.

I've been complaining about the Chiefs drafts on the 'Planet for years. I've been saying since 2007 that the roster has been depleted of talent. I've been countering people who told me that guys like Kevin Samson and Will Svittek and Tre Stallings "just needed time".

This roster is the least talented in the NFL and it's going to take a few years, at best, before they've got guys that can take over a game and WIN.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Nah.

This is the most talent-depleted roster in the entire league.

The team that Marty took over had a plethora of high first and high second round picks.

The current roster is pretty much crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

While that's true to some extent, let's not confuse the Chiefs 2008 roster with the roster of the 1994 Dallas Cowboys, 1989 49ers or even the current elite teams such as the Giants, Panthers, Ravens and Patriots.

The Chiefs have a few more drafts and several holes to fill in free-agency before declaring this roster "talented".

.[/QUOTE]

here are just a few posts dane. all from this year 2009. the 2nd from last was 1-29-2009

**DaneMcCloud** · 10-06-2009, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

.

here are just a few posts dane. all from this year 2009.[/quote]

Jason, I wasn't talking about the drafts that occurred in 2007 and 2008 (hell, really not even 2009).

I don't really have a problem with Herm's drafts, especially 2008.

It's other people that have a problem with Herm, period.

JD10367 · 10-06-2009, 05:38 PM

The "better or worse after four games" argument is a short-term view. You need to think long-term. As has been said before, Pioli could've easily made the Chiefs look really good. He could've kept Tony Gonzalez. He could've hired a "name" coach. He could've signed an old retread QB like Jeff Garcia. And the Chiefs might be 2-2 right now, and might bob along to a 7-9 or 8-8 record. But as a team they wouldn't be any better in the long-term, with no plan or solution. Thinking short-term is what got the Chiefs into the mess they're in. Sometimes you have to suffer a bit more on the front end to get the results on the back end.

**SAUTO** · 10-06-2009, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

here are just a few posts dane. all from this year 2009.

Jason, I wasn't talking about the drafts that occurred in 2007 and 2008 (hell, really not even 2009).

I don't really have a problem with Herm's drafts, especially 2008.

It's other people that have a problem with Herm, period.[/QUOTE]

dane if herms drafts were so great how could we have the least talented roster in the league?

**SAUTO** · 10-06-2009, 05:40 PM

the quote function must be ****ed up today

**DaneMcCloud** · 10-06-2009, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

The "better or worse after four games" argument is a short-term view. You need to think long-term. As has been said before, Pioli could've easily made the Chiefs look really good. He could've kept Tony Gonzalez. He could've hired a "name" coach. He could've signed an old retread QB like Jeff Garcia. And the Chiefs might be 2-2 right now, and might bob along to a 7-9 or 8-8 record. But as a team they wouldn't be any better in the long-term, with no plan or solution. Thinking short-term is what got the Chiefs into the mess they're in. Sometimes you have to suffer a bit more on the front end to get the results on the back end.

You're missing the whole point of this discussion:

Pioli didn't ANYTHING this year long-term for the Chiefs.

Do you think Goff will be with the Chiefs next year? Vrabel? Waters? LJ? Bradley? Mays? Belcher? Hell, even DJ? Ron Edwards?

Where's the "foundation" of the future? Where's the game-changers? Where's the improvement, period?

Oh that's right: There is none.

Reerun_KC · 10-06-2009, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You're missing the whole point of this discussion:

Pioli didn't ANYTHING this year long-term for the Chiefs.

Do you think Goff will be with the Chiefs next year? Vrabel? Waters? LJ? Bradley? Mays? Belcher? Hell, even DJ? Ron Edwards?

Where's the "foundation" of the future? Where's the game-changers? Where's the improvement, period?

Oh that's right: There is none.

I guess they should just quit and dissolve the franchise?

**DaneMcCloud** · 10-06-2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

dane if herms drafts were so great how could we have the least talented roster in the league?

Jason, how many draft picks are there per year?

Oh, that's right: 7.

So, if the Chiefs hit on every single player during Herm's three year tenure (which is virtually impossible for any team to achieve), that's 21 players.

21 players. Out of 53.

Now, that nonsense aside, let's say the Chiefs went 4-3 this year instead of ****ing up the last three years and changing to the 3-4.

The Chiefs would have Flowers, Carr, Page, Hali, Dorsey, Turk, Tank, Albert, Cottam, Charles, Morgan, Pollard, Bowe, Leggett, Derrick Johnson and Kolby Smith as their building blocks.

How many guys is that? 16 guys. 16 guys out of 53.

You still need another seven very good players to complete your starting roster, which the Chiefs STILL do not have. Center, Right Guard, Right Tackle, two linebackers, two wide receivers, two running backs and a ton of depth. Oh, and a QB.

I'd say that's the least talented roster in the league, especially given that many of those guys are nothing more than average.

**DaneMcCloud** · 10-06-2009, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

I guess they should just quit and dissolve the franchise?

Are you kidding?

It's already been completely dismantled.

As I've said since November 2008: This is an expansion franchise in terms of talent.

**SAUTO** · 10-06-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Jason, how many draft picks are there per year?

Oh, that's right: 7.

So, if the Chiefs hit on every single player during Herm's three year tenure (which is virtually impossible for any team to achieve), that's 21 players.

21 players. Out of 53.

Now, that nonsense aside, let's say the Chiefs went 4-3 this year instead of ****ing up the last three years and changing to the 3-4.

The Chiefs would have Flowers, Carr, Page, Hali, Dorsey, Turk, Tank, Albert, Cottam, Charles, Morgan, Pollard, Bowe, Leggett, Derrick Johnson and Kolby Smith as their building blocks.

How many guys is that? 16 guys. 16 guys out of 53.

You still need another seven very good players to complete your starting roster, which the Chiefs STILL do not have. Center, Right Guard, Right Tackle, two linebackers, two wide receivers, two running backs and a ton of depth. Oh, and a QB.

I'd say that's the least talented roster in the league, especially given that many of those guys are nothing more than average.

cottam smith turk hali morgan pollard? come on dane

**DaneMcCloud** · 10-06-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

cottam smith turk hali morgan pollard? come on dane

What? Are you telling me that those guys aren't average football players?

Your roster cannot be built on the backs of Superstars.

You need average to above average players at most positions, save QB and pass rusher, who need to be exceptional if there's any chance of a championship.

Everyone can't be a Pro-Bowler, Jason.

And as it stands currently, the Chiefs have maybe eight players on their roster that are average or above.

The rest suck ass.

**DeezNutz** · 10-06-2009, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

dane i wouldnt bash you. but i do recall your posts about this being the LEAST talented team in football. many in fact. who was responsible for that? herm and carl. the blame falls on both

Carl, then DV, then...................Herm.

The only talent on the team comes from the Herm years. DV and Carl's blind loyalty and indiscretion to Grandpa are the elements that really ****ed this franchise.

10-05-2009, 01:50 PM
OnTheWarpath15 MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $2021115	At the Quarter Mark: Better or Worse? After the Haley hire, you couldn't throw a stick through this place without hitting someone that made the following comment: "We'll be a better team based on coaching alone," or, "we'll win X amount of games due to coaching alone." Yes, it's only been 4 games, and this is NOT a call for Haley's head - but is deserved criticism of the way he's prepared this team over the first 4 games of the regular season. Also, IN NO WAY is the following an endorsement of Herman Edwards. What it is, however, is a giant red flag - this team - of which 60% has been handpicked by Pioli and Haley - is actually worse in almost all statistical categories when compared to the 2008 team after 4 games - which many here claimed were the darkest days of last season. We'll call it, B.S. - or, Before Spread. Offensively (bolded number is 2009 totals): 1st downs: (63) (62) 3rd down conversions: (25/62 - 40%) (9/51 - 18%) Total yards: (1145) (986) Rushing yards: (554) (406) Passing yards: (591) (580) Sacks Allowed: (12) (13) Penalties/Yardage: (10/109) 29/230 Scoring: (16.25 PPG) (16 PPG) Not a single category in which we've improved over 2008, which happened to include going through 3 QB's - playing the 3rd stringer in 2 of the 4. Defensively: 1st downs allowed: (74) (85) 3rd down conversions against: (25/54 - 46%) (25/58 - 43%) Total yards allowed: (1517) (1516) Rushing yards allowed: (706) (514) Passing yards allowed: (811) (1002) Sacks: (3) (5) Points allowed: (24.25 PPG) (28 PPG) Turnover margin: (+2) (Even) Yea! 2 more sacks! And nice to see the 192 yard improvement from the rush defense, only to see 191 of it be given back up by the pass defense. The 2008 team was apparently so bad that management felt the need to purge 30 players, yet is playing worse with a roster that is 60% their handpicked players? What message are you trying to send, Todd? It seems like it changes on a weekly **ing basis. As someone who predicted a 3 win season, the losses aren't surprising me. The way we are losing, after hearing the phrase, "we're going to be a big, strong, fast, smart, tough, disciplined football team" IS surprising me. There is no improvement over the "Dark Ages" of last season in ANY of those areas. And there's no excuse for it, especially the lack of discipline. Make 'em run some more, Todd - it seems to be working... Enough excuses - enough with the "messages" - enough petty bullshit sitting players - time to see some *ing improvement. Not necessarily wins. IMPROVEMENT. Last edited by OnTheWarpath15; 10-05-2009 at 05:47 PM..*
Posts: 60,758

10-06-2009, 05:38 PM	#201
JD10367 Cheaterlover* Join Date: May 2009 Location: RI Casino cash: $10010716	The "better or worse after four games" argument is a short-term view. You need to think long-term. As has been said before, Pioli could've easily made the Chiefs look really good. He could've kept Tony Gonzalez. He could've hired a "name" coach. He could've signed an old retread QB like Jeff Garcia. And the Chiefs might be 2-2 right now, and might bob along to a 7-9 or 8-8 record. But as a team they wouldn't be any better in the long-term, with no plan or solution. Thinking short-term is what got the Chiefs into the mess they're in. Sometimes you have to suffer a bit more on the front end to get the results on the back end.
Posts: 12,916

10-06-2009, 05:40 PM	#203
SAUTO Shit Join Date: Jun 2008 Casino cash: $10039067	the quote function must be ****ed up today
Posts: 55,715