Chiefs QB Cassel Tries to Explain the "Right 53"

by Joel Thorman on Oct 23, 2009 8:52 AM CDT in 2009 Campaign Comment 50 comments

Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Matt Cassel (7) celebrates his touchdown pass to tackle Mike Vrabel (50) during the first half of an NFL football game between the Dallas Cowboys and Kansas City Chiefs Sunday, Oct. 11, 2009, in Kansas City, Mo. Kansas City Chiefs tight end Sean Ryan (89) also celebrates on the play. (AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)

More photos » by Orlin Wagner - AP

about 1 month ago: Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Matt Cassel (7) celebrates his touchdown pass to tackle Mike Vrabel (50) during the first half of an NFL football game between the Dallas Cowboys and Kansas City Chiefs Sunday, Oct. 11, 2009, in Kansas City, Mo. Kansas City Chiefs tight end Sean Ryan (89) also celebrates on the play. (AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)

Browse more photos »

Is it possible for members of the Kansas City Chiefs organization to be more vague when it comes to talking about the "right 53"? Though all the power players have given their varying definitions, they all include playing the players that give the team the best chance to win.

For Matt Cassel, it doesn't quite sound like he even knows what the "right 53" means, or at least willing to explain what it means.

"You know," Cassel began, "I think coach could be more specific on it, I don’t really know what the definition of the ‘right 53’ is, but I’m sure it means whoever is going to give us the best chance to win."

Referring the question to the head coach, or the lone voice of the organization, is a New England trait, for sure. When asked to get a little more specific, Cassel used words like "toughness, awareness doing your jobs".

So if that's the "right 53", then what's the not right 53? What does Todd Haley not like?

"I don’t know," he said, "it’s hard to say. Some days it’s different than others. Really, in terms of what tests him, you’re going to have to ask him on that."

When asked about New England and the new regime in Kansas City, Cassel cited practice schedules and overall how they want to go about their business as similarities.

"In many regards, there are some similarities in what we did in New England – the culture, the environment and what they’re trying to get across to the players, the messages that we’re sending. I definitely would say there are a lot of similarities in how we’re running the organization, or how the organization is being run, in my opinion."

So is the "right 53" a Kansas City or New England thing?

" I think every NFL team strives to get to the ‘right 53,’ whatever that means – whatever is going to give you the best opportunity to win."

Whatever that means. After 10 months, I still couldn't give you a definition of the right 53, which is probably the way the Chiefs like it.

0 recs | Comment 50 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If nobody knows what the "right 53" means...

then what’s the point in preaching it? So we don’t question their personnel decisions when we think they’re completely crazy?

by ChiefsDude on Oct 23, 2009 9:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

and by the way

I do think Pioli and Haley know what they’re talking about. I just wish they’d quit using terms that they’re clearly not going to ever elaborate on.

When they get a team to the superbowl, I guess we’ll know they found the “right 53”.

by ChiefsDude on Oct 23, 2009 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree it's just another thing they keep throwing around.

Just like when they made a big deal about players earning their arrowheads and then at the end nothing came of it.

Chiefs set an NFL record,most roster changes in 1 season.

by bringbacktheglory on Oct 23, 2009 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Patriotesque

Haley and Pioli desperately want to do everything the “Patriot” way, and that includes being vague and not divulging information so they made up a nonsensical phrase that they refuse to define. It’s like telling everyone you work with an inside joke you have with a friend over and over again with no reference.

by TampaRoyal on Oct 23, 2009 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know what it means

Its a fancy term management uses as an excuse why they haven’t picked up any “high priced talent”.

Why didn’t you go after Orlando Pace, Bart Scott, Jason Brown, Julius Peppers, Tory Holt, Terrel Owens etc etc etc? Because they wen’t part of the right 53.

Its a canned answer.

Week 7 Prediction:
Kansas City Chiefs 77 - San Diego Chargers 2

by craig in calgary on Oct 23, 2009 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's Also Meaningless

If you don’t define the terms that comprise your organizational philosophy, you use those terms to mean anything you want them to mean.

Not to kick off a political discussion, but by way of comparison that’s the approach Bush followed for years when people asked him to define what he meant by “victory” or “strategy” in Iraq. When words don’t mean anything, you can use them in any way you want to explain away a lack of results…even when your decisions are pretty idiotic.

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

1. Todd Haley's going to struggle with managing his staff in his rookie year as head coach.
6. The Chiefs will go 7-9 in 2009, good for 2nd in the AFC West. Revision: We go 5-11 and finish behind Oakland.
7. Ryan Succop will not perform better in 2009 than Connor Barth did in 2008.
8. The Chiefs will have a bottom 10 defense this year.
9. RB will be a problem area this season on offense.

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's Also Called Doublespeak

Here’s the definition…if you ever read George Orwell’s “”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four" target="new">1984" then you probably get the concept.

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Corrected Link

1984

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think anyone but the Jets had a shot at Scott. Rex Ryan was parked outside of his house the moment free agency started.

I wouldn’t have wanted Pace or Owens, Peppers would have cost a few picks since he was franchised (I believe) and I probably wouldn’t have liked Holt being signed either.

I will give you Brown though. I wanted him. I don’t know if they ever had a chance though, seems like he signed with his first stop (Rams).

by bh13 on Oct 23, 2009 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kind of a "free pass" to do what they want without having to answer any questions about it.

I agree. It also allows them to make excuses as to why a scrub like Goff is playing when there is a clear upgrade already on the team.

by Chiefsfan1970 on Oct 23, 2009 9:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think anyone who has any coaching experience

has a pretty good idea what the “right 53” means. Coaching requires a lot of plugging people into the right slots at the right times to accomplish what needs to be done during any given circumstance. Sometimes it takes a while to get that “right 53” who give you the best opportunity to win. Next year’s “right 53” won’t be anywhere near the same as this year’s “right 53”. Count on it. That’s my two cent’s worth.

by G.L. on Oct 23, 2009 10:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree to an extent

I think coaching & mgt is still trying to figure out what they have exactly, and remember, Pioli was kind of handcuffed this past offseason, because he was still using Carl’s scouts. Now those jokers are gone & Pioli has his own guys in there now, and I think he’ll draft much better in 2010.

There will most definitely be some serious turnover before next season starts. I think you’ll see us let go guys like Waters, Mike Brown, Derrick Johnson, and hopefully we’ll get some 2011 picks for em’!

by reedeasy on Oct 23, 2009 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt anybody will want to trade for Brown, maybe not Waters either.

They are both in the twilight of their careers and I think they are more valuable to us ON the team than the value we would get for them in a trade.

DJ, on the other hand COULD get traded but, I don’t think Pioli is going to just give him up for a 5th round pick. He is a RESTRICTED free agent after this season so, we still have a lot of say so as to what happens with him.

by Chiefsfan1970 on Oct 23, 2009 10:21 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

We’ve already passed the trade deadline so unless I’m unware of some rule that gets around it there is no chance that he gets traded.

by JComp11 on Oct 23, 2009 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I Think He's Just Talking About The Offseason

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly right.

by Chiefsfan1970 on Oct 23, 2009 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you can trade RFA’s?

by JComp11 on Oct 23, 2009 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You Can Trade Them Once They're Under Contract

Or do a sign-and-trade that involves a one year contract with a small cap hit (kind of like we did with the Patriots on Cassel).

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What would be the advantage of that over just taking the compensation that comes with him signing with another team?

by JComp11 on Oct 23, 2009 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Teams Would Be Unlikely To Sign Him

The compensation for RFAs is prohibitive. The only way RFAs usually switch teams is by a deal where the team trades their rights, unless they just decide not to re-sign the guy.

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which very well could happen in this case.

by Chiefsfan1970 on Oct 23, 2009 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you're probably right

about Waters & Brown, but we @ least need to draft their replacements next year, OR move albert to LG & draft a blue chip LT. Someone made a comment about having lots of G’s but lacking depth @ tackle which I agree with wholeheartedly.

I think the “right 53” or whatever it’s gonna be for an uncapped or an 18 game season involves us having o-line depth and serious options @ the skill positions.

I’m very interested to see what happens w’ DJ the rest of the season.

by reedeasy on Oct 23, 2009 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Right 53 in a nutshell

In my opinion, Mark Bradley offers the Chiefs more on the field than Bobby Wade because Bradley is faster and can get separation while Wade is more of a posession receiver. Since he became a Chief, Bradley surely has the most catches of 20+ yards out of anyone on the team.

Yet whenever Bradley has seen significant time this year, he’s shot the team in the foot by running routes short of the markers on third down, wiping away key plays by committing penalities, and other similar mistakes. He has more talent than Wade, but in terms of overall value, he takes a hit because of his errors.

Wade is a solid guy who doesn’t often produce the big play, but rarely does anything to hurt the team. In terms of talent, he’s a bit of a drop-off from Bradley, but he doesn’t lose any points for screwing up.

The advantage Bradley has in talent is negated by his habit of making mistakes. If we were to use Madden ratings, let’s say Bradley is an 80 and Wade a 75. But Bradley’s habit of mental mistakes takes 6 points off his score. That makes Wade the more valuable player. The coaching staff seems to feel that Wade’s production and his lack of mistakes are worth more than Bradley’s higher production and frequent mistakes.

As a result, Wade is starting over Bradley. That’s the right 53. They’re going to go with the players who provide the most value, even if that’s not necessarily the ones with the most talent.

by SlipperyPete on Oct 23, 2009 10:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I think that is a great example

It's a good thing Pioli and Haley aren't running AP or a lot of you guys would of been traded or cut for cast offs from the Pats Pulpit.

by KCporkchop on Oct 23, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't really understand the questions about the "right 53"

I think it’s pretty clear so I don’t really understand the constant questions about it. I think it’s a way of saying you pick the guys that work together and play together the best rather than picking based on individual talent, call it the “best 53”. I would say Dan Snyder uses the “best 53” method. He tries to grab the best 53 individual players he can find.

When we truly have the “right 53”, we’ll be a championship level team.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

by Big Chief on Oct 23, 2009 10:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

But what does it mean?

pick the guys that work together and play together the best rather than picking based on individual talent

That only works for certain aspects of the game. The O-Line and D-Lines need to play well together, but how does picking up a stud Right Tackle in Free agency impact the defense? It doesn’t. I agree that needs to be some cohesive “sub-teams” for lack of a better term but I still think having a magical lockeroom of 53 people is rediculous.

Look at the 6-0 Vikings who are a very complete team. They picked players up off the street, from free agency, from the draft, they are all very talented and have one goal: To win the SB. You can have a lockerroom full of guys who love each other and work well together, but you need something else…TALENT. There is no magical formula how to win the Superbowl, the “Right 53” is a bunch of horse shit….In my opinion :)

Week 7 Prediction:
Kansas City Chiefs 77 - San Diego Chargers 2

by craig in calgary on Oct 23, 2009 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think picking the "right 53" excludes talent

in fact I think that’s clearly part of the equation. And no, there is no magical formula. The HC and GM are going to make wrong decisions. But what a lot of fans seem to pull for is the Dan Snyder / Fantasy Football approach to building a team. They want the stud D tackle who has the great stats, regardless of the fact he may get them because he abandons gap responsibility (think Chester McGlockton).

At this point I think Pioli and Haley are trying to identify guys who have good talent and fit with the schemes, have the right work ethic and attitude. Not just for this year but for the long run.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

by Big Chief on Oct 23, 2009 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are exactly right!

The phrase is self-explanatory, so to ask for a definition is like asking what the meaning of the word “Is” is.

You don’t need to look any further than Tight End to figure out what “Right 53” means. #88 is the best tight end to ever play the position, but he was too much TE for the offense Haley wanted to run. That alone does not make him wrong for the “Right 53”, but add in the fact that he openly supported being traded if the Chiefs could work a good deal and you have a guy that isn’t “Right”.

The “Right” guys must possess both talent AND be capable of working within the system being coached. Haley doesn’t have the “Right 53” now because there simply isn’t enough talent on the field, so he is working the other half of the equation as hard as he can.

by RrustyDawg on Oct 23, 2009 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

aksdjhasjkldhaskldjahskldjashdjklhasdjklh

No offense rusty dog, but that is a weak argument.
Tony Gonzalez is “too much TE” and that Haley doesn’t feature a TE?
So why is Sean Ryan so heavily featured in the passing game?

Week 7 Prediction:
Kansas City Chiefs 77 - San Diego Chargers 2

by craig in calgary on Oct 23, 2009 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Plus we've all heard of "addition by subtraction"

Especially in reference to Terrel Owens. We always heard that Jerry Jones was trying to make a “Romo Friendly offense” by cutting Terrel Owens. What has happened after they got rid of Romo’s best weapon? He’s struggled mightily. I’m not saying Chemistry isn’t a good thing, but it does not trump talent.

Week 7 Prediction:
Kansas City Chiefs 77 - San Diego Chargers 2

by craig in calgary on Oct 23, 2009 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Chemistry"

It’s a word that pundits throw around but really it’s not that significant to winning. The Oakland As back in the 1970s used to get into fistfights with each other in the locker room and a lot of them hated each other, but they won a lot of games so people claimed they had “chemistry” when all they really had was a talented ballclub. Same with the early 80s Yankees.

“Chemistry” is usually just a made up word to try and explain a way why a team stinks without looking at the obvious causes of coaching, talent, and individual player behavior. Frankly, I think journalists just use it because they get bored of pointing out the obvious so often so they look for something else to write about…even if they have to make it up.

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And In Football

A lot of players on the 1990s Cowboys didn’t like each other or hang out all the time, but they still won games because they had loads of talent and a great coach.

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chemistry may be overused, but it's not irrelevant

It’s frequently used to explain why a talented team doesn’t meet expectations, when coaching or other issues are really at fault.

But I don’t buy the relevance of your baseball analogies. Football is the MUCH more of a team sport than baseball. And I don’t think having chemistry mean that teammates “hang out all the time”. It means they will play as a unit and work well toward a common goal. As for the Cowboys, I always thought Michael Irvin was a real “me-first” guy, but when he was being discussed for the HOF I heard a lot of his teammates talk about what a leader he was in the locker room. I think it’s difficult to assess chemistry from the outside. But I think for a team to win a championship, and certainly for multiple championships, team chemistry is a significant factor.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

by Big Chief on Oct 23, 2009 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd Disagree

It’s frequently used to explain why a talented team doesn’t meet expectations, when coaching or other issues are really at fault.

You’re correct in the times in which it’s used, but really I don’t see anything about chemistry that doesn’t fall under the coaching, personnel management, or talent arenas. Football is about execution…players run schemes the coaching staff puts in place and when they don’t it’s usually a factor of talent (e.g. Mike Goff this year), a flawed coaching scheme (e.g. Herm’s entire tenure), or the players’ abilities not matching the scheme that’s being run (e.g. many of the acquisitions of the second half of Peterson’s tenure here). I do think that chemistry plays a small role between individual players or small subsets (e.g. chemistry between WR/QB or chemistry between o-linemen) but there’s no such thing in football as “chemistry” that affects a whole team dynamic. When your team isn’t working well together it’s usually a case of having personnel who don’t fit the system, or personnel who don’t have the ability to do what the coaching staff asks them to do, or a coaching staff that comes up with a flawed gameplan (or, in the case of the Chiefs the last few years, a mixture of all of them).

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

For A Small Example

Mike Goff doesn’t stink at guard because of “chemistry” on the line…he stinks because he’s an old player who can’t execute the physical tasks required of the position any more. Rudy Niswanger doesn’t stink because of “chemistry”…he stinks because he’s a marginal NFL player. Damion McIntosh wasn’t a horrible pass-protector because of “chemistry”…he was horrible because he’s got bad knees and lacked the mobility and quickness necessary to execute his scheme. All physical failings of the players chosen by the GM and coaching staff to play each week…but we keep hearing how “chemistry” is somehow going to improve them. When the fact is that the team really just needs more talent on their o-line.

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again I think you are using fallacious arguments

I don’t think anyone would say that Goff’s or McIntosh’s level of play are examples of bad chemistry. And while chemistry is obviously important between some player groups (lineman, QB and receivers, lineman and RBs, D line and LBs) I think there is such a thing as team wide chemistry. I think a sign of bad team chemistry is finger pointing. When you start seeing examples of team mates calling each other out in the media, or the defense or offense are blaming the other side, I think you have chemistry problems. Now can chemistry fall under “personnel management” – of course, everything can, including coaching.

I’ve been on teams in different sports where coaching didn’t change and talent was comparable and seen what difference team chemistry can make. It can take just a few guys more interested in blowing their own horn to bring a good team down where a weaker team can beat it. When under pressure teams can either pull together or pull apart. I’ve seen both and a lot of times it has come down to chemistry. I think it’s natural, a part of the human condition.

You are welcome to believe what you will, but I think getting a good team chemistry is an important part of building a championship team.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

by Big Chief on Oct 23, 2009 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or Maybe

Finger-pointing is just players pointing out that their teammates don’t have sufficient talent to perform the job asked of them, or pointing out that management didn’t do a good job of building the team, or pointing out that the coach’s gameplan is crap. The Bills of the 1990s were known as the Bickering Bills because of all the public sniping they did at each other. I doubt anyone would say they had “chemistry” based on how they dealt with each other, but they went to four consecutive Super Bowls.

“Chemistry” as most pundits use it is a bullshit dump. It’s meaningless. Teams that do well are described as having “chemistry”, teams that don’t are described as lacking it, but what does “chemistry” actually mean? By which I mean, what is a concise, clear all-encompassing definition to describe the word? Nobody has ever come up with one…they just lump bits and pieces from all of the other areas I mentioned together under the “chemistry” heading and try to generalize instead of breaking down what the actual, specific failings or successes could really be attributed to. Journalists often do it out of laziness, coaches, players and GMs do it to avoid taking responsibility for their performances. It’s not real…or more specifically, the idea that it’s a factor that widely controls the actions of individuals all across a team is not real.

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or To Ask A Question

It can take just a few guys more interested in blowing their own horn to bring a good team down where a weaker team can beat it.

By which I assume you mean players who don’t execute the tasks asked of them, like pass-blocking, running the correct routes, or playing hard on every play? Because those things all fall under the realm of “talent” or “coaching”. When a player refuses to execute a play by choice, it’s the individual player’s fault for not putting out full effort. Or in cases where the effort is not lacking, it’s the coach’s fault for utilizing the player in a manner not befitting that players’ skills. It’s not the rest of the team’s fault when either of those things happen…it’s a problem with one of two individuals (or in some cases both individuals).

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

By the way UCrawford

do you ever comment over at the Agitator?

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

by Big Chief on Oct 23, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sometimes

Less so than I used to, but yeah…I love Balko’s work. :)

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I Like His Friday Music Posts As Well

Just wish that if he was looking for a good libertarian-style tune to put up there he’d post “Government Cheese” by The Rainmakers…maybe show a little love to an excellent KC band. :)

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah - I like Balko's stuff

I was making a comment a few days back and saw your name – I also use Big Chief there.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

by Big Chief on Oct 23, 2009 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Think I've Seen Your Stuff Too

I use UCrawford pretty much everywhere I post online…and XBox Live whenever I play on there (which isn’t that often anymore). Glad to meet another Agitator commenter. :)

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Oct 23, 2009 5:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

No offense taken, Craig, but I disagree on the weakness of my point. I wasn’t arguing anything, so OK, as an argument it was probably weak. But I was using it as an example of the team trading away the most talented player in the NFL at his position because he wasn’t part of the “Right 53”.

In reality, the fact that Ryan is featured as much as he is only serves to amplify my point that Tony was not part of the “Right 53”. He was more valuable to the team as trade bait then he was as TE because we now had other TE options good enough for Haley’s game plan. Sure, Tony is better than Ryan, but Ryan is part of the “Right 53”

If you have a better explanation of why we traded away Tony, I’d be glad to hear it. For the record, I think it was a mistake that has already cost us 2 wins this season, but that’s water under the bridge.

by RrustyDawg on Oct 23, 2009 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll agree with you there.

I didn’t like the Tony trade then…hate it now. I still think he’s got a good 3-4 years in him.
And we will never be able to replace his talent with a 2nd round pick.

Week 7 Prediction:
Kansas City Chiefs 77 - San Diego Chargers 2

by craig in calgary on Oct 23, 2009 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's an abstract term

There is not a ‘canned’ definition of what the “right 53” is.
Even if there was, I don’t think Pioli would want it published.

I think they’ve given enough clarity to it by saying thing like “it’s not the most talented team, its the ones that do things the way we want them done”

I also think they’ve been very consistent in executing that strategy, much to our dismay sometimes, as they’ve gotten rid of some very talented players in exchange for “no name” guys that buy into their system.

* "I doubt anyone will miss Connor Barth except UCrawford"
* the LB corps may become the biggest strength of the Chiefs in 2009
* The OL is NOT as bad as you think it is... give it time, and you'll see improvement this season

by stagdsp on Oct 23, 2009 10:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs