Worried: Someone tell me why we won't get murdered by Atlanta.

[Frankie]

Our D might well end up a good one as the season progresses. But I'm very very worried about the first game. Not just to lose, but to lose discouragingly big.

1- Our DL while solid has not shown signs of wreaking havoc in the opponents' backfield. Yes I'm told that's the style of 34 Romeo plays. But wait....

2- Without Tamba Hali Ryan will have all day to throw, especially considering point 1.

3- The thought of Roddy White, Julio Jones, and Gonzo, against our depleted secondary stresses me to almost puking.

This is gonna be one of those games when we see passes completed against our D with scary consistency. The only way we have any chance to win this is if we can manage long time consuming run heavy drives that would keep the Atlanta O on the bench for the majority of the game. Maybe that's why Daboll was emphasizing the run in the last preseason game so much.

Tell me something hopeful.

[Ace Gunner]

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning

We must lose to win.

I am giving your address to Todd Haley

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by O.city

Clay you have a negative attitude, like Eeyore.

Clay is a realist about this team, as we all should be. (I am looking at you Black Bob)

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by New World Order

Clay is a realist about this team, as we all should be. (I am looking at you Black Bob)

Eat a dick.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by New World Order

Clay is a realist about this team, as we all should be. (I am looking at you Black Bob)

Go **** your daddy
Posted via Mobile Device

[Black Bob]

Originally Posted by New World Order

Clay is a realist about this team, as we all should be. (I am looking at you Black Bob)

Clay is a gambler and foolish about this. If we lose a bunch of games, it will screw up the chemistry of the team that has been built throughout the rebuild. It will be ugly this time and we will be rebuilding the rebuild and that is bad news. No quarterback is lock and the "first round QB is a must" idea is flawed. KC will be good this year. I think if Eric Berry read what Clay wrote he would punch him in the face. The players just voted Cassel captain and they did it for a reason. They believe in the guy and I think they take pride in being a team that is not built around one player. The "suck for Luck" philoiphy would bomb with KC's players. It would be 1000% against everything they have been taught here. It would be 1000% the opposite of what Clark is building. We are trying to win constantly.

[O.city]

Are you 12?

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by BlackBob

Clay is a gambler and foolish about this. If we lose a bunch of games, it will screw up the chemistry of the team that has been built throughout the rebuild. It will be ugly this time and we will be rebuilding the rebuild and that is bad news. No quarterback is lock and the "first round QB is a must" idea is flawed. KC will be good this year. I think if Eric Berry read what Clay wrote he would punch him in the face. The players just voted Cassel captain and they did it for a reason. They believe in the guy and I think they take pride in being a team that is not built around one player. The "suck for Luck" philoiphy would bomb with KC's players. It would be 1000% against everything they have been taught here.

Since 2005 all but one super bowl winning team drafted quarterbacks in the first round, the exception being Drew Brees who was drafted with the first pick in the second round.

[Canofbier]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

You try when the opportunity presents itself. You don't reach for mediocrity.

The Jackson argument is one that Pioli wins. We didn't have a true five tech on this roster when he came in and Jackson was the best potential for that position in that draft. And guess what? He's now playing like one of the best five techs in the league and the stats back him up.

At this point I sure as hell would rather have Jackson versus Sanchez. And this place would have went freaking ballistic if they picked Freeman at #3.

In fact, as it stands, I think you take only Clay Matthews and possibly BJ Raji over Jackson in that draft.

In 2010, we were not getting Bradford no matter how much you wanted to pony up. So, do you reach for Tebow over Eric Berry?

In 2011, quarterbacks went quick and a lot went much earlier than was anticipated. Were you willing to forgo Jon Baldwin and Rod Hudson to trade up for Blaine Gabbert or Christian Ponder?

In 2012, we were not getting Luck. Indy wasn't going to trade that pick for five full drafts. Griffin commanded a lot of picks...would you be willing to give up Poe, Allen and a shot at someone like Wilson, Jones, Smith or Bray in 2013?
Would you have been happy to give up multiple picks to move up for Tannehill and forgo the chance at previously said QB's in 2013?

It's about building a team, not mortaging your future on a position because we haven't picked that position in the first round in a while.

You all need to be a bit more objective and rational.

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

would i give up poe for Griffin?



you're applying the famous Chiefsplanet risk double standard

drafting a QB is risky

drafting an under achieving NT from a shitty conference is not risky

bottom line: we've spent 3 top eleven picks on the DL...and a 2nd on a backup QB

it's not defensible

A smart post followed by a stupid one. The realistically available QBs from two years ago haven't done anything since they were drafted by other teams. They still have a chance to improve and become something, but if we can assume that no miracle turnarounds occur, drafting them would have done absolutely nothing for the Chiefs.

As for this last draft, you're dumb if you think we had any chance at Luck. Griffin was gettable, but only if you were willing to give up more than what the Redskins did, which was already a LOT. I personally believe that Griffin III will be a good QB, but if last season and this preseason has demonstrated anything, it's that this team still lacks strong, lasting depth. Injuries are inevitable, and with the deep class of talented quarterbacks in next year's draft, I can definitely understand the choice to build depth and keep our picks for next year.

Griffin III could be a a hall of famer for all we know, but the fact of the matter is that it's far more likely that he'll end up being average or slightly above average. Football is a team sport, and Sam Bradford is proof that even a talented QB can't overcome a lack of team talent or depth. We'll hopefully have a better chance at a new franchise QB after this season because of the deep class, and at that point we'll have a stronger overall team for that player to come to. As a result, he'll have a smoother development and a better supporting cast than if we had gone all-in to trade up to #2.

Call me brainwashed if you want, but I see a team that has improved significantly in the last few years. Like it or not, both football and life can be estimated with reasonable accuracy using statistics and averages, and if you continually improve the average talent and ability of your team, probability suggests that you will have a team that will compete year after year. If and when we finally obtain a top-tier quarterback to lead this generally talented team leading us to make continual runs deep into the playoffs, all of you constant whiners will look stupid. Either way, this team's arrow is pointed up, and to claim otherwise is silly.

[Canofbier]

Originally Posted by New World Order

Since 2005 all but one super bowl winning team drafted quarterbacks in the first round, the exception being Drew Brees who was drafted with the first pick in the second round.

You're citing the wrong statistic. Instead, why don't you tell us the fraction of quarterbacks taken in the first round that have won supoerbowls? Oh, does that particular number not suppor your point?

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by Canofbier

You're citing the wrong statistic. Instead, why don't you tell us the fraction of quarterbacks taken in the first round that have won supoerbowls? Oh, does that particular number not suppor your point?

Most teams in the league that are successful have qb's drafted in the first or second round. I would much rather try and fail then stick with Dink and Dunk Cassel

[Black Bob]

Originally Posted by New World Order

Since 2005 all but one super bowl winning team drafted quarterbacks in the first round, the exception being Drew Brees who was drafted with the first pick in the second round.

Brady won in 2005 and he wasn't a first rounder. It's all relative man. If I go back in history, I'm sure there are other positions that these teams have in common that were first round picks. How many Superbowl winners had a first round CB? How many Superbowl winners had a first round receiver? How many had a first round pass rusher? See what I mean?

Also, how do you reasonably factor in the guys who have won more than one Superbowl?


If you are going to do this the right way, you need to use both the winning and losing Superbowl Quarterbacks. Or, even the top four from the championship games each year. What some are trying to prove is that you need to have a first round QB to be a good teaam right? I mean the losing superbowl teams are still good teams right? If you are going by that theory, it's about making the championship game.

Winning the Superbowl is the goal and I understand that. However, there have only been 46 Superbowls and there have been hundreds - maybe thousands of quarterbacks that played in the NFL. When you look at those first round QBs on the list, most of them won more than one Superbowl or Championship before Superbowls existed. Most of those guys are Hall of Famers.

The point is that we need to research this much further before we can definativley say that a first round QB is the key to success.

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by BlackBob

Brady won in 2005 and he wasn't a first rounder. It's all relative man. If I go back in history, I'm sure there are other positions that these teams have in common that were first round picks. How many Superbowl winners had a first round CB? How many Superbowl winners had a first round receiver? How many had a first round pass rusher? See what I mean?

Also, how do you reasonably factor in the guys who have won more than one Superbowl?


If you are going to do this the right way, you need to use both the winning and losing Superbowl Quarterbacks. Or, even the top four from the championship games each year. What some are trying to prove is that you need to have a first round QB to be a good teaam right? I mean the losing superbowl teams are still good teams right? If you are going by that theory, it's about making the championship game.

Winning the Superbowl is the goal and I understand that. However, there have only been 46 Superbowls and there have been hundreds - maybe thousands of quarterbacks that played in the NFL. When you look at those first round QBs on the list, most of them won more than one Superbowl or Championship before Superbowls existed. Most of those guys are Hall of Famers.

The point is that we need to research this much further before we can definativley say that a first round QB is the key to success.

That was the 2004 season, not 2005.


Face it, the NFL is a passing league, you need a good qb to contend.

[NJChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by BlackBob

Brady won in 2005 and he wasn't a first rounder. It's all relative man. If I go back in history, I'm sure there are other positions that these teams have in common that were first round picks. How many Superbowl winners had a first round CB? How many Superbowl winners had a first round receiver? How many had a first round pass rusher? See what I mean?

Also, how do you reasonably factor in the guys who have won more than one Superbowl?


If you are going to do this the right way, you need to use both the winning and losing Superbowl Quarterbacks. Or, even the top four from the championship games each year. What some are trying to prove is that you need to have a first round QB to be a good teaam right? I mean the losing superbowl teams are still good teams right? If you are going by that theory, it's about making the championship game.

Winning the Superbowl is the goal and I understand that. However, there have only been 46 Superbowls and there have been hundreds - maybe thousands of quarterbacks that played in the NFL. When you look at those first round QBs on the list, most of them won more than one Superbowl or Championship before Superbowls existed. Most of those guys are Hall of Famers.

The point is that we need to research this much further before we can definativley say that a first round QB is the key to success.

Well we need to get one from somewhere. Are qb isn't gonna do it. He can have the career year you predict, he still won't get us to the Super Bowl. We are just wasting the talent we have.

[Black Bob]

Originally Posted by New World Order

That was the 2004 season, not 2005.


Face it, the NFL is a passing league, you need a good qb to contend.

I agree for the most part but, a first round QB doesn't always make a "good" QB.

[NJChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by BlackBob

I agree for the most part but, a first round QB doesn't always make a "good" QB.

But youdo need one. If u don't have a qb who can win a playoff gm you don't have much of a chance. People reference SF, well there qb had to win them that saints gm. Sorry but natty isn't doing that. Plus if smith steps up in the giants gm they probably avoid the fumble in OT. Point is we need a real qb to get where we eventually want to go in this league. Hoping a marginal qb will take us there is as big a risk as getting a new one, and has/will waste as much time.