Chiefs what's with all the Orton isn't the answer talk? - Page 20

wutamess · 12-20-2011, 08:30 AM

OK he has the same stats avg as Cassle. BS! My dad and I argue about the Cheifs as if we're Pioli and Haley. I told him 3 weeeks ago, "dude. We finally have our QB." He looked at me like I was crazy and borderline ignored me.

I tried explaining to him we finaly have a qb that can make all of the throws. All he could muster up was he wasn't shit in Denve and he wasn Shit in Chicago. I told him he had good stats lat yar and turned Brandn Lloyd into NFLs #1 wr last year. He wasn't buying it but my point was valid.

I further went to explain that now Orton had something he's NEVER had as far as weapons. Now he has 2 BIG WRs as well as a WR that will stretch the field. Add JC and Moeki coming back next year and I think we can be a top 5 offense with Orton.

I just don't understand why people think he's a fluke ad try to compare him to Cassle when he's HEAD AND SHOULDERS above Cassel in EVERY category. I'll go so far as to say we don't need to draft qb this year if we sign Orton... I'm als thinking with Berry coming back and a O tackle and another stud LB to complement DJ, we're poised for a SUPERBOWL RUN!

'Hamas' Jenkins · 12-21-2011, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega

That explains why we have playoff losses to teams quarterbacked by Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, John Elway and Peyton Manning in the last 18 years.

Since 1993:

Montana > O'Donnell
Montana > Moon
Montana < Kelly
Montana < Marino
Bono < Harbaugh
Grbac < Elway
Green < Manning
Green < Manning
Cassel < Flacco

That's not a coincidence.

**the Talking Can** · 12-21-2011, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denny

But building a solid all-around team with a solid QB is a LOT EASIER to do than finding an "elite QB." Too many teams ignore doing the rest of the work as they engage on one wild-goose-chase after another seeking the semi-mythical "great" QB.

No one says that you can keep looking for a great QB while you build a good overall team. If one comes along, sure - grab him.

But that's not what happens. Teams throw away solid QBs that they can win a lot a games with in a frantic, panicked search for "THE GUY." Squandering resources grabbing up one false hope after another.

Or else the Front Office uses the QB position as an excuse why they can't build a winner, rather than admitting to their own incompetence...

of course it is easier to build a team that goes 8-8 than a Superbowl team...the Chiefs are living proof

the only question is why are you obsessed with the former when the latter is the only ****ing thing that matters?

any team that isn't in a frantic search to find a great QB is a team that is cheating it's (incredibly stupid) fans and simply banking $$$ for its owner...

Hammock Parties · 12-21-2011, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denny

I don't think that KC's problem has been the lack of an elite QB. It's been a lack of commitment in building a great team overall.

This also explains why it took the Steelers 14 years to win a Super Bowl under Bill Cowher.

It actually wasn't the fact that Neil O'Donnell, Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox sucked.

Nope. For 13 years the Steelers just weren't committed to building great teams.

When they finally wised up, BOOM! Super Bowl. Ben Roethlisberger just happened to be the benefactor of good timing.

Brock · 12-21-2011, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denny

But building a solid all-around team with a solid QB is a LOT EASIER to do than finding an "elite QB." Too many teams ignore doing the rest of the work as they engage on one wild-goose-chase after another seeking the semi-mythical "great" QB.

No one says that you can keep looking for a great QB while you build a good overall team. If one comes along, sure - grab him.

But that's not what happens. Teams throw away solid QBs that they can win a lot a games with in a frantic, panicked search for "THE GUY." Squandering resources grabbing up one false hope after another.

Or else the Front Office uses the QB position as an excuse why they can't build a winner, rather than admitting to their own incompetence...

Wow, you really dropped some knowledge there. It's easier to just build a solid all around team and hope for the best? You don't say.

One would think that Chiefs fans would know better than anyone else that picking up these "solid QBs that can win" that other teams "threw away" just gets you beat in the playoffs and rather quickly.

Take a look at the past 10 super bowls and realize which side of the odds you're playing.

**the Talking Can** · 12-21-2011, 01:02 PM

Chiefs fan: afraid of trying to win a Superbowl but not afraid of finishing 8-8

Sofa King · 12-21-2011, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega

This also explains why it took the Steelers 14 years to win a Super Bowl under Bill Cowher.

It actually wasn't the fact that Neil O'Donnell, Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox sucked.

Nope. For 13 years the Steelers just weren't committed to building great teams.

When they finally wised up, BOOM! Super Bowl. Ben Roethlisberger just happened to be the benefactor of good timing.

You're on a roll.

Hammock Parties · 12-21-2011, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sofa King

You're on a roll.

Did you also know that the reason the Cowboys went 12 years between Super Bowls had nothing to do with Roger Staubach and Troy Aikman?

Nope. See, little known fact: Tom Landry started doing cocaine and black tar heroin in the 80s. It completely sapped his commitment to great team building.

whoman69 · 12-21-2011, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega

Did you also know that the reason the Cowboys went 12 years between Super Bowls had nothing to do with Roger Staubach and Troy Aikman?

Nope. See, little known fact: Tom Landry started doing cocaine and black tar heroin in the 80s. It completely sapped his commitment to great team building.

I knew he must have hid his stash under that hat.

**Baby Lee** · 12-21-2011, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

This thread took a turn for exactly what I claimed about Chiefs fans.

Here are the dynamics.

Orton is demonstrably better than Cassel, but doesn't want to be pressed by a replacement, wants to be THE guy.

Cassel is beyond horrible and way overpaid.

Stanzi is a complete unknown.

Palko is worthless.

The Chiefs are presently moving away from the range where surefire franchise QBs are available, into a steep dive into franchise busts.

So what to do.

We don't know how many picks [if any] it'll take to move back into surefire franchise QB range.

We don't want Cassel back in any form

We don't want to waste too many years of a great many peaking performers, Hali, the Brandons, Bowe, hopefully Burrrry and Charles.

So many franchise QBs, especially the ones who eventually pan out, who start right away, suffer through 1, 2, 3 ATROCIOUS seasons [Manning, Aikman, in particular]. Even worse if they start out atrocious and just stay there.

OTOH, Rodgers sat and learned for 3 seasons and was ready to start at a high level right out of the box.

Information collation and analysis is an imperfect science, particularly when so much of it lies in the future. But my present take is to offer Orton at least the illusion/chance to be a long term solution. Sell him on the plan to draft a franchise QB who'll nevertheless sit on the bench for an extended period of seasoning and learning, during which time, the team is his. Be prepared to make judicious moves up in the draft for good value, resist temptation to go all Ditka on the draft, and hope like hell one of the surefires drops to our range.

Cassel has everything desirable [work ethic, durability, attitude, commitment], except talent. Talent can't be taught.

Orton has talent, but is suspicious for poise. Poise CAN be learned. This is again a future piece of information, but the possibility exists that that light has turned on, or is in the process of such.

I'd love to be sitting here a year from now with an RGII-v-Orton [or even RG-KO-RS] situation that is as win/win as SD's Rivers-v-Brees decision.

patteeu · 12-21-2011, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Here are the dynamics.

Orton is demonstrably better than Cassel, but doesn't want to be pressed by a replacement, wants to be THE guy.

Cassel is beyond horrible and way overpaid.

Stanzi is a complete unknown.

Palko is worthless.

The Chiefs are presently moving away from the range where surefire franchise QBs are available, into a steep dive into franchise busts.

So what to do.

We don't know how many picks [if any] it'll take to move back into surefire franchise QB range.

We don't want Cassel back in any form

We don't want to waste too many years of a great many peaking performers, Hali, the Brandons, Bowe, hopefully Burrrry and Charles.

So many franchise QBs, especially the ones who eventually pan out, who start right away, suffer through 1, 2, 3 ATROCIOUS seasons [Manning, Aikman, in particular]. Even worse if they start out atrocious and just stay there.

OTOH, Rodgers sat and learned for 3 seasons and was ready to start at a high level right out of the box.

Information collation and analysis is an imperfect science, particularly when so much of it lies in the future. But my present take is to offer Orton at least the illusion/chance to be a long term solution. Sell him on the plan to draft a franchise QB who'll nevertheless sit on the bench for an extended period of seasoning and learning, during which time, the team is his. Be prepared to make judicious moves up in the draft for good value, resist temptation to go all Ditka on the draft, and hope like hell one of the surefires drops to our range.

Cassel has everything desirable [work ethic, durability, attitude, commitment], except talent. Talent can't be taught.

Orton has talent, but is suspicious for poise. Poise CAN be learned. This is again a future piece of information, but the possibility exists that that light has turned on, or is in the process of such.

I'd love to be sitting here a year from now with an RGII-v-Orton [or even RG-KO-RS] situation that is as win/win as SD's Rivers-v-Brees decision.

I'll sign on to all of that.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 12-21-2011, 02:03 PM

I have no problem with Orton starting for this team next year, but that's really the only year he should start for this team if it wants to do much of anything with the talent it has in place. Rookie QBs should, generally, sit, but they also need reps. Year one should just help them acclimate to the league, practice schedules, routines, film study, adjusting to the speed of the game through running the scout team, and occasional play in games that are decided.

Here's what we do know:

The odds are overwhelmingly, and I can't stress this enough, overwhelmingly in favor of Hali, Carr, Flowers, etc all being wasted if the QB is Orton anyway. The odds of a team winning the way the NFL is currently constructed with Kyle Orton types as its QBs are infinitesimally low. It was already low five years ago, it's nearly nonexistent now.

The Chiefs winning many of the games that they did this season hurt the franchise in the long run, but at this point, that cost is sunk. What we also know is that this is a team that has a lot of available cap room and one glaring weakness. It also has problems with depth.

Depth can be addressed wisely and, at times, economically through sound FA acquisitions. What you cannot acquire through FA in almost every instance is a quarterback that can win you a Super Bowl, unless said QB is coming off of some kind of injury thought to be career threatening (Brees, Warner, Montana), and even if you acquire said QB, the clock is usually at 11:30 for their career anyway.

Given that the draft is predictive in nature the best you can do is make sound scouting reports, do your due diligence, and then play the odds.

Trading a whole draft for a QB is absolutely worth the risk, because without that QB, you aren't going anywhere anyway.

Let's just assume that Pioli did go all "Ditka" in the 2009 draft, acquiring Stafford in the process. Is the team in better or worse shape? Or what if he realized Cassel wasn't the answer after the playoffs and did the same thing for Cam Newton.

The fact of the matter is that, regardless of where we are, there are never surefire franchise QBs at any point. All have inherent risks. If they bust, the team is set back, but it's only set back relative to where it would be if they had a franchise quarterback, because in this league, without one, you might as well be playing hockey without a goalie.

**the Talking Can** · 12-21-2011, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Given that the draft is predictive in nature the best you can do is make sound scouting reports, do your due diligence, and then play the odds.

Trading a whole draft for a QB is absolutely worth the risk, because without that QB, you aren't going anywhere anyway.

Let's just assume that Pioli did go all "Ditka" in the 2009 draft, acquiring Stafford in the process. Is the team in better or worse shape? Or what if he realized Cassel wasn't the answer after the playoffs and did the same thing for Cam Newton.

The fact of the matter is that, regardless of where we are, there are never surefire franchise QBs at any point. All have inherent risks. If they bust, the team is set back, but it's only set back relative to where it would be if they had a franchise quarterback, because in this league, without one, you might as well be playing hockey without a goalie.

bingo

had we said 4 years ago that Pioli was going to waste the prime of Hali/Charles/Bowe/Flowers careers on Cassel and then Orton...would anyone have said "sign me up, that's a great plan!!"?

would anyone 4 years ago have said "I hope we waste 3 years and then sign Kyle Orton..."?

if we don't draft QB this year, a waste of 4 years (going on 5) is solidified and next year is already irrelevant, as is every year until we do draft a QB...

Dexter Manley · 12-21-2011, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

bingo

had we said 4 years ago that Pioli was going to waste the prime of Hali/Charles/Bowe/Flowers careers on Cassel and then Orton...would anyone have said "sign me up, that's a great plan!!"?

would anyone 4 years ago have said "I hope we waste 3 years and then sign Kyle Orton..."?

if we don't draft QB this year, a waste of 4 years (going on 5) is solidified and next year is already irrelevant, as is every year until we do draft a QB...

What if the FO ends up drafting Joey Harrington II?

Dexter Manley · 12-21-2011, 02:48 PM

"Trading a whole draft for a QB is absolutely worth the risk, because without that QB, you aren't going anywhere anyway"

A QB is nothing without protection and quality skill players...

**RealSNR** · 12-21-2011, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobbie

"Trading a whole draft for a QB is absolutely worth the risk, because without that QB, you aren't going anywhere anyway"

A QB is nothing without protection and quality skill players...

Protection and skill players are nothing without a good QB (see: Tyler Palko/Matt Cassel/all 2011 Chiefs QBs)

One of these things is easier to acquire than the other. Any reerun can draft/sign linemen and receivers. To find the right QB is much harder. If you don't try hard continuously and constantly, you'll never find one.

The Chiefs haven't tried at all. That's why they haven't won playoff games since Clinton's first term

12-20-2011, 08:30 AM
wutamess MVP Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Lee's Summit Casino cash: $4711637	what's with all the Orton isn't the answer talk? OK he has the same stats avg as Cassle. BS! My dad and I argue about the Cheifs as if we're Pioli and Haley. I told him 3 weeeks ago, "dude. We finally have our QB." He looked at me like I was crazy and borderline ignored me. I tried explaining to him we finaly have a qb that can make all of the throws. All he could muster up was he wasn't shit in Denve and he wasn Shit in Chicago. I told him he had good stats lat yar and turned Brandn Lloyd into NFLs #1 wr last year. He wasn't buying it but my point was valid. I further went to explain that now Orton had something he's NEVER had as far as weapons. Now he has 2 BIG WRs as well as a WR that will stretch the field. Add JC and Moeki coming back next year and I think we can be a top 5 offense with Orton. I just don't understand why people think he's a fluke ad try to compare him to Cassle when he's HEAD AND SHOULDERS above Cassel in EVERY category. I'll go so far as to say we don't need to draft qb this year if we sign Orton... I'm als thinking with Berry coming back and a O tackle and another stud LB to complement DJ, we're poised for a SUPERBOWL RUN!
Posts: 8,290

12-21-2011, 01:02 PM	#290
the Talking Can Supporter Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: street Casino cash: $9182208	Chiefs fan: afraid of trying to win a Superbowl but not afraid of finishing 8-8 __________________ Clark Hunt: "Thank god for the Dominican pool boy"
Posts: 51,585

12-21-2011, 02:03 PM	#296
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $7149572	I have no problem with Orton starting for this team next year, but that's really the only year he should start for this team if it wants to do much of anything with the talent it has in place. Rookie QBs should, generally, sit, but they also need reps. Year one should just help them acclimate to the league, practice schedules, routines, film study, adjusting to the speed of the game through running the scout team, and occasional play in games that are decided. Here's what we do know: The odds are overwhelmingly, and I can't stress this enough, overwhelmingly in favor of Hali, Carr, Flowers, etc all being wasted if the QB is Orton anyway. The odds of a team winning the way the NFL is currently constructed with Kyle Orton types as its QBs are infinitesimally low. It was already low five years ago, it's nearly nonexistent now. The Chiefs winning many of the games that they did this season hurt the franchise in the long run, but at this point, that cost is sunk. What we also know is that this is a team that has a lot of available cap room and one glaring weakness. It also has problems with depth. Depth can be addressed wisely and, at times, economically through sound FA acquisitions. What you cannot acquire through FA in almost every instance is a quarterback that can win you a Super Bowl, unless said QB is coming off of some kind of injury thought to be career threatening (Brees, Warner, Montana), and even if you acquire said QB, the clock is usually at 11:30 for their career anyway. Given that the draft is predictive in nature the best you can do is make sound scouting reports, do your due diligence, and then play the odds. Trading a whole draft for a QB is absolutely worth the risk, because without that QB, you aren't going anywhere anyway. Let's just assume that Pioli did go all "Ditka" in the 2009 draft, acquiring Stafford in the process. Is the team in better or worse shape? Or what if he realized Cassel wasn't the answer after the playoffs and did the same thing for Cam Newton. The fact of the matter is that, regardless of where we are, there are never surefire franchise QBs at any point. All have inherent risks. If they bust, the team is set back, but it's only set back relative to where it would be if they had a franchise quarterback, because in this league, without one, you might as well be playing hockey without a goalie. __________________ "When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 75,083

12-21-2011, 02:48 PM	#299
Dexter Manley Veteran Join Date: Dec 2011 Casino cash: $10004900	"Trading a whole draft for a QB is absolutely worth the risk, because without that QB, you aren't going anywhere anyway" A QB is nothing without protection and quality skill players...
Posts: 1,263