Geno Smith vs Alex Smith - It's on.

[Hammock Parties]

It's on now. Geno Smith is probably going to be starting for the Jets this season.

Alex Smith will be the Chiefs QB for the forseeable future. If he's a success, we'll probably get five good years out of him.

So who's gonna win more NFL games over that time period?

Put your ten pounders on the table and make a vote

Alex: 11 wins
Geno: 8 wins

[keg in kc]

Being okay with the way the franchise has been run since 1998 is basically wanting your team to lose.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Being okay with the way the franchise has been run since 1998 is basically wanting your team to lose.

Dumb.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Messier

Dumb.

Just simplistic thinking.

Its like saying because you don't enjoy Rush you don't like 80's Rock N Roll.

No I just don't like Rush.

If you don't like Rush you must hate 80's Rock because Rush is an 80's rock band.

No idiot I don't like Rush.

Simplistic thinking.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Messier

Dumb.

It's okay to disagree. It's not okay to be disagreeable.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Just simplistic thinking.

Its like saying because you don't enjoy Rush you don't like 80's Rock N Roll.

No I just don't like Rush.

If you don't like Rush you must hate 80's Rock because Rush is an 80's rock band.

No idiot I don't like Rush.

Simplistic thinking.

WTF does that have to do with anything?

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

WTF does that have to do with anything?

Maybe I am confused.

Please explain this comment.

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Being okay with the way the franchise has been run since 1998 is basically wanting your team to lose.

[O.city]

I think where keg is coming from is that from about 98 to say 2008, the franchise was always ran in the present, never looking towards the future. It was always "scrap together what we can, to try and win now, we can deal with tomorrow later".

Once Carl was gone, Pioli was brought in and that was just disaster after disaster.

Now the new FO has come in, trying to win now, but also seems to have an eye towards the future. Which is refreshing.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

It's okay to disagree. It's not okay to be disagreeable.

Alright. I disagree.

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

WTF does that have to do with anything?

Not rooting for your team to lose does not mean you are ok with the way the team has been run. Why do you guys need to make these untrue comparisons to run down people that disagree with you?

Especially after you said this:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

It's okay to disagree. It's not okay to be disagreeable.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Maybe I am confused.

Please explain this comment.

It was a double entendre. I was on one hand referring to a certain segment of the fanbase that seems to believe the front office can do no wrong, and jumps all over anyone who questions any moves made, whether it's by Peterson, or Pioli or Dorsey. It's something that I've seen happen every offseason going back as far back as 1999. So I was saying that people like that, who never question anything, are basically just accepting whatever they get. Which as we know, over that period of time, has been losing.

And as O.city mentioned, the franchise has also operated in their version of "win now" mode over that time frame, with very little in terms of real commitment given to team development through the draft. Marty/Gun and Vermeil all basically killed the future (now present) of the franchise from the mid-90s through the mid-00s, and without the aberration that's marked by a few solitary draft picks between 2006 and 2008 things would be even worse now, as hard as that is to believe. So I also was saying that being okay with the way the franchise was operated from 1998 until now is being okay with losing. Because that's ultimately what you'll get.

Now, I hope they're trying to change the approach. You'd think they would, particularly with Dorsey (Reid's activities the last couple of years are frightening, on the other hand...). But the reality is that they haven't, yet. They also haven't really had time to.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by splatbass

Not rooting for your team to lose does not mean you are ok with the way the team has been run. Why do you guys need to make these untrue comparisons to run down people that disagree with you?

Especially after you said this:

How was I running him down? I didn't understand his analogy.

Anyway, maybe we can stop sniping at each other and talk about the topic.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by O.city

I think where keg is coming from is that from about 98 to say 2008, the franchise was always ran in the present, never looking towards the future. It was always "scrap together what we can, to try and win now, we can deal with tomorrow later".

Once Carl was gone, Pioli was brought in and that was just disaster after disaster.

Now the new FO has come in, trying to win now, but also seems to have an eye towards the future. Which is refreshing.

Every season I enter somewhat hopeful to varying degrees. I remember being hopeful when Croyle was being trotted out as a starter. I'm a big homer. I'm sure it's somewhat naive, but I just can't operate the other way, where I say I don't think this will work. The closest I got to that was last year. I was disheartened that Cassel was back, and didn't think Crennel was the best coaching choice.

I'm sure even the strongest pessimist will say they're hopeful, but I don't get the ire at homers. People that don't say things like, I'm done with this team, I can't take it, and then look at those that stay positive, even maybe naively so, and say you're part of the problem. No. Totally wrong. Are the Royals fans that have stuck it out and held on to hope for 28 seasons part of the problem? The real pessimistic fans might get annoyed at homers, but homers aren't okay with losing, I get really angry and frustrated, but at the start of every season I hit a reset button, especially in seasons involving a lot of changes.

Thinking homer or "true" fans are okay with losing, and thinking they make the team sit on their hands is as wrong as thinking SOC was the reason Hunt cleaned house. Both are not true. When I see footage of 10,000 fans sitting in the stands in the early '80s I don't say, fools! I think those are the good solid fans.

[keg in kc]

I think the real problem is that we're all so hyper-worried about what other people think about what we have to say. But that's the internet: a wacky environment where people are sort of aggressively defensive. And narcissistic. So many things seem to be taken as personal effrontery.

[Sandy Vagina]

Originally Posted by Messier

Every season I enter somewhat hopeful to varying degrees. I remember being hopeful when Croyle was being trotted out as a starter. I'm a big homer. I'm sure it's somewhat naive, but I just can't operate the other way, where I say I don't think this will work. The closest I got to that was last year. I was disheartened that Cassel was back, and didn't think Crennel was the best coaching choice.

I'm sure even the strongest pessimist will say they're hopeful, but I don't get the ire at homers. People that don't say things like, I'm done with this team, I can't take it, and then look at those that stay positive, even maybe naively so, and say you're part of the problem. No. Totally wrong. Are the Royals fans that have stuck it out and held on to hope for 28 seasons part of the problem? The real pessimistic fans might get annoyed at homers, but homers aren't okay with losing, I get really angry and frustrated, but at the start of every season I hit a reset button, especially in seasons involving a lot of changes.

Thinking homer or "true" fans are okay with losing, and thinking they make the team sit on their hands is as wrong as thinking SOC was the reason Hunt cleaned house. Both are not true. When I see footage of 10,000 fans sitting in the stands in the early '80s I don't say, fools! I think those are the good solid fans.

Really strong post. Fans should hit the reset button each year. The only possible exception is if organizations have a disastrous season, yet keep all aspects of the team the same. That could put a real strain on hope... but that isn't the case with what KC has done from the 2012 to 2013 season.

GO CHIEFS

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Messier

Every season I enter somewhat hopeful to varying degrees. I remember being hopeful when Croyle was being trotted out as a starter. I'm a big homer. I'm sure it's somewhat naive, but I just can't operate the other way, where I say I don't think this will work. The closest I got to that was last year. I was disheartened that Cassel was back, and didn't think Crennel was the best coaching choice.

I'm sure even the strongest pessimist will say they're hopeful, but I don't get the ire at homers. People that don't say things like, I'm done with this team, I can't take it, and then look at those that stay positive, even maybe naively so, and say you're part of the problem. No. Totally wrong. Are the Royals fans that have stuck it out and held on to hope for 28 seasons part of the problem? The real pessimistic fans might get annoyed at homers, but homers aren't okay with losing, I get really angry and frustrated, but at the start of every season I hit a reset button, especially in seasons involving a lot of changes.

Thinking homer or "true" fans are okay with losing, and thinking they make the team sit on their hands is as wrong as thinking SOC was the reason Hunt cleaned house. Both are not true. When I see footage of 10,000 fans sitting in the stands in the early '80s I don't say, fools! I think those are the good solid fans.

Firstly, there isn't anything wrong with that type of fan at all, that's 95% of the franchise fan base. Where it goes awry is on cp people think if you are pessimistic about x or y, you aren't a fan I the team and need to move along to another team. You don't have to be excited about every move and you can question moves a team makes and still be a fan.

Yet on here, when you do that some (not you specifically) start throwing insults at you and put a stop to a lot of football talk. As much as some want to argue the pessimist have ruined football talk, it goes the other way as well. "Homers" don't like to read negative stuff and take it as a personal insult.

Again, I don't have a problem with "homers" but that's just not the way I view sports. Hell, I'm as diehard of a stl cardinals fan as there is, fifth generation, first word was Ozzie, season tickets when we live hours away kind of fan. They're one of the most successful organizations in sports an I still question moves they make. I don't think that makes me any less of a fan.