An addition to the Pioli resume

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Dave

10 wins.

Whoop-dee-****ing-doo.

You're making my point, dumbass.

You claimed adding a HOF QB to this team would result in 10 wins.

Who cares about 10 wins?

The goal is to win a championship.

It doesn't matter who we draft in April, he's not going to play to the level of a HOF QB.

Will he make the team better? Sure.

But until the new GM starts improving the roster around him, those 10 wins and an occasional playoff loss are going to be as good as it gets.

[OnTheWarpath15]

You don't get to - or win - a Super Bowl with just a QB.

The problem is that this fanbase automatically undervalues players on other teams, while overvaluing our players.

You need a complete team - including a QB.

And even then, sometimes it's not enough.

Could Geno Smith come in next year and lead us to 8 or 9 wins?

Maybe.

But unless the new GM starts hitting on some draft picks and making some smart FA signings, 8-9 wins and the occasional one-and-done in the playoffs is the ceiling.

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

You don't get to - or win - a Super Bowl with just a QB.

The problem is that this fanbase automatically undervalues players on other teams, while overvaluing our players.

You need a complete team - including a QB.

And even then, sometimes it's not enough.

Could Geno Smith come in next year and lead us to 8 or 9 wins?

Maybe.

But unless the new GM starts hitting on some draft picks and making some smart FA signings, 8-9 wins and the occasional one-and-done in the playoffs is the ceiling.

Give us names of all this great talent on GB. Other than Rodgers and Mathews.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

You don't get to - or win - a Super Bowl with just a QB.

The problem is that this fanbase automatically undervalues players on other teams, while overvaluing our players.

You need a complete team - including a QB.

And even then, sometimes it's not enough.

Could Geno Smith come in next year and lead us to 8 or 9 wins?

Maybe.

But unless the new GM starts hitting on some draft picks and making some smart FA signings, 8-9 wins and the occasional one-and-done in the playoffs is the ceiling.

Well unfortunately until Peyton Manning retires we're going to be settling for fighting for the 5th and 6th seed every year so I doubt we have immediate playoff success REGARDLESS...

and this is the point I've been saying for YEARS in regard to the great Brady/Manning debate. YEARS. I'm glad to see people are starting to understand.

AND, again, we get grossly outcoached every game. Defense alone we have Johnson, Hali, Houston, Flowers and Berry with guys like Poe who have potential and guys like Arenas who are serviceable. You can't have an all-star at every position you need coaching to come up with schemes to put the 'average to system' players in position to succeed.

We do not have that luxury.

Denver has a QB that consistently sustains LONG drives and puts them in the lead so they can play to their defensive strengths (get after the passer)...we don't. Peyton Manning makes that solid defense with great playmakers ELITE and PETRIFYING.

We have Houston and Hali. If Peyton Manning were our QB he'd enable them to be ELITE and PETRIFYING.

I don't think you understand HOW MUCH Peyton Manning does for that team...offense and...and...ESPECIALLY defense.

[Chief Roundup]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

The problem is that this fanbase automatically undervalues players on other teams, while overvaluing our players.

The "fan base" might but not on here so much. On here any player for any other team is better than whomever the Chiefs have is the normal schtick around here.

Someone who is good with that PFF stuff could put all of our players or position groups against other teams and probably get a more accurate measure of where our "team" stands as far as talent goes.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

You don't get to - or win - a Super Bowl with just a QB.

The problem is that this fanbase automatically undervalues players on other teams, while overvaluing our players.

You need a complete team - including a QB.

And even then, sometimes it's not enough.

Could Geno Smith come in next year and lead us to 8 or 9 wins?

Maybe.

But unless the new GM starts hitting on some draft picks and making some smart FA signings, 8-9 wins and the occasional one-and-done in the playoffs is the ceiling.

the opposite could be said about quite a few here too

[-King-]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

the opposite could be said about quite a few here too

THIS.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

the opposite could be said about quite a few here too

Sorry, but that's BS.

Do you know how much crap homers on this site have spewed about things like:


Jon Baldwin vs Demaryius Thomas

Tony Moeaki vs ANY tight end drafted in recent memory.

Dexter McCluster vs Players Who Actually Make Plays

Brady Quinn vs Legit NFL QBs

Tyson Jackson vs Any Asshole With A Helmet

Stanford Routt vs Corners Who Aren't Burn Victims



There is precious little talent on this roster to "undervalue."

[Hootie]

The reason we are so terrible is simple:

We have terrible, terrible, WRETCHED QB play...and terrible coaching.

Good schemes make average players look great (sometimes). We have shit, shit, SHITTY schemes...Romeo is so soft and plays such a shitty defense it's disgusting. We show ZERO aggression. Bend don't break doesn't cut it in the passing NFL.

Would you rather put a ton of heat on the QB and risk an 80 yard quick TD here and there...or just let teams consistently pick up 3rd and 6 all game long because you're soft as shit and instead of an occasional quick hitter they go on 5 long scoring drives that kill the defense in the process?

We are a competent staff and QB away from being a good football team.

I've been very complimentary of Denver all season long and think they have AN ELITE DEFENSE with AN ELITE SCHEME...but I do not think they have more than 1 win worth of talent than us if you take Manning out of the equation (see 2011)...and outside of the WR position I don't see them overwhelming us on any other unit.

[FAX]

An excellent, albeit devastatingly depressing analysis, Mr. OnTheWarpath58.

By all rights, however, I think we shouldn't count Dr. Evil's first year ... or, at least, we should weight it less heavily. That was, by any reasonable standard, a rebuild year for sure. The new regime inherited a sloppy, lazy, completely unmotivated gaggle of out-of-shape quitters. Although I despise Dr. Evil as much or more than anyone else on planet Earth, I'd give that to any new GM/HC group.

What is unforgivable, though, was mentioned by Mr. Rausch earlier today. It's entirely unacceptable that you are worse in year 4 of your "rebuild" than you were in year 1 ... and we are.

It goes without saying that the root problem is lack of talent. But I'd add that it's lack of talent at some of the most crucial positions. And, of course, if you don't have quality depth in the NFL, you don't have squat because there are always injuries.

Frankly, I've given up thinking about this too hard because, when I do, the reality hits me once more just how screwed we are. The hopelessness that permeates this organization is palpable and, given our current situation and the total failure to improve or even stabilize the situation, we have only Pioli to thank. So, here's to you, Dr. Evil. May you wallow in opossum urine all your days.

FAX

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by FAX

An excellent, albeit devastatingly depressing analysis, Mr. OnTheWarpath58.

By all rights, however, I think we shouldn't count Dr. Evil's first year ... or, at least, we should weight it less heavily. That was, by any reasonable standard, a rebuild year for sure. The new regime inherited a sloppy, lazy, completely unmotivated gaggle of out-of-shape quitters. Although I despise Dr. Evil as much or more than anyone else on planet Earth, I'd give that to any new GM/HC group.

What is unforgivable, though, was mentioned by Mr. Rausch earlier today. It's entirely unacceptable that you are worse in year 4 of your "rebuild" than you were in year 1 ... and we are.

It goes without saying that the root problem is lack of talent. But I'd add that it's lack of talent at some of the most crucial positions. And, of course, if you don't have quality depth in the NFL, you don't have squat because there are always injuries.

Frankly, I've given up thinking about this too hard because, when I do, the reality hits me once more just how screwed we are. The hopelessness that permeates this organization is palpable and, given our current situation and the total failure to improve or even stabilize the situation, we have only Pioli to thank. So, here's to you, Dr. Evil. May you wallow in opossum urine all your days.

FAX

Not depressing at all. In 3 days, we'll be rid of him forever.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by FAX

An excellent, albeit devastatingly depressing analysis, Mr. OnTheWarpath58.

By all rights, however, I think we shouldn't count Dr. Evil's first year ... or, at least, we should weight it less heavily. That was, by any reasonable standard, a rebuild year for sure. The new regime inherited a sloppy, lazy, completely unmotivated gaggle of out-of-shape quitters. Although I despise Dr. Evil as much or more than anyone else on planet Earth, I'd give that to any new GM/HC group.

What is unforgivable, though, was mentioned by Mr. Rausch earlier today. It's entirely unacceptable that you are worse in year 4 of your "rebuild" than you were in year 1 ... and we are.

It goes without saying that the root problem is lack of talent. But I'd add that it's lack of talent at some of the most crucial positions. And, of course, if you don't have quality depth in the NFL, you don't have squat because there are always injuries.

Frankly, I've given up thinking about this too hard because, when I do, the reality hits me once more just how screwed we are. The hopelessness that permeates this organization is palpable and, given our current situation and the total failure to improve or even stabilize the situation, we have only Pioli to thank. So, here's to you, Dr. Evil. May you wallow in opossum urine all your days.

FAX

I adamantly disagree with any notion of a "rebuild" in the sense that a team cannot be reasonably successful while going through it. Thus, discounting or prorating our evaluation of Pioli in '09 in nonsensical in my view.

Our talent at key positions was pretty damn good. Still is, though it's largely the same guys. If Pioli were even reasonably good at his job, we could have been a consistent playoff team from '09 forward.

I don't care whom Clark hires as the next GM; the sonofabitch doesn't get an "evaluation year." Furthermore, "rebuilding" is rhetorical bullshit sold on fans to get them to continue to support financially a shit team. It's fluff and does nothing but absolve blame and buy time.

"Evaluation years," "Right 53s," "Processes," and "Rebuilding years" can be shoved right up the next GM's ass if he even dares utter these trite cliches.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

I adamantly disagree with any notion of a "rebuild" in the sense that a team cannot be reasonably successful while going through it. Thus, discounting or prorating our evaluation of Pioli in '09 in nonsensical in my view.

Our talent at key positions was pretty damn good. Still is, though it's largely the same guys. If Pioli were even reasonably good at his job, we could have been a consistent playoff team from '09 forward.

I don't care whom Clark hires as the next GM; the sonofabitch doesn't get an "evaluation year." Furthermore, "rebuilding" is rhetorical bullshit sold on fans to get them to continue to support financially a shit team. It's fluff and does nothing but absolve blame and buy time.

"Evaluation years," "Right 53s," "Processes," and "Rebuilding years" can be shoved right up the next GM's ass if he even dares utter these trite cliches.

Okay.

What do you call it when you install entirely new defensive and offensive playbooks and schemes, reassign positional responsibilities to your "best" players, and introduce an entirely new leadership group into the mix?

I know ... let's call it "Gloobering"! That should work just fine.

FAX

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by FAX

Okay.

What do you call it when you install entirely new defensive and offensive playbooks and schemes, reassign positional responsibilities to your "best" players, and introduce an entirely new leadership group into the mix?

I know ... let's call it "Gloobering"! That should work just fine.

FAX

Outside of QB, are the Chiefs more talented than the Colts? How are the Redskins possibly surviving during this difficult "rebuilding" process? Hell, what about the Seahawks, the least talked about good team in the NFL? That "rebuild" is a bitch.

Why in the world should the highest paid GM in the game get a mulligan, if one entire season can even be counted so lightly?

[FAX]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Outside of QB, are the Chiefs more talented than the Colts? How are the Redskins possibly surviving during this difficult "rebuilding" process? Hell, what about the Seahawks, the least talked about good team in the NFL? That "rebuild" is a bitch.

Why in the world should the highest paid GM in the game get a mulligan, if one entire season can even be counted so lightly?

How should I know? I'm just a passerby in the football game of life.

But here's my best guess ...

When other franchise find themselves in the gloobering phase, they have the benefit of certain advantages the Chiefs simply do not possess. Namely, things like a more successful tradition or better coaching or stellar players at key positions (like say ... quarterback) or more recent experience in playing in and even winning playoff games.

As I see it, there are so many variables (schedule, fitting players into entirely new schemes or not, quality at key positions, or lack thereof, etc., etc.) that it's very difficult to isolate one particular gloober issue or (as the OP does) compare franchises in the way you wish to do, Mr. DeezNutz. We cannot magically snap our fingers and become the Redskins or the Seahawks or the Colts or anybody else.

I'll give you a couple of examples of what I mean ...

The Chiefs have been historically bad at things like developing players. Unless we draft a player who enters the league with franchise or near-franchise talent and a driving, personal desire to improve (say ... a Tony Gonzalez type) we rarely see them improve from "okay" to "great". We've had a few, but not many. Additionally, the Chiefs seem to suck at what some people call "complimentary football". We either have a good offense and a bad defense or vice versa. That means when we try and gloober (like those teams you mention) we are working from a fundamental, organizational, systemic disadvantage. It's the reason we are always the league's ugly bridesmaids. And until those fundamentals change, we'll always suck when it counts the most.

And perhaps most importantly, I'm not sure that other franchises (the good ones, I mean) maintain the inherent loser mentality that the Chiefs have cultivated for some 50 years. In social terms, those franchises have a "high bottom" whereas ours is apparently bottomless.

FAX