Ex Chiefs that no one wants...were we worse than 2-14?
by kc571 on Sep 2, 2009 3:25 PM CDT
44 comments
As I look around the league, I'm starting to really think we, our Chiefs were even worse than our record last year. Today, I see the Bill released Pat Thomas.
Earlier in the week, the Raiders released Will Franklin. Earlier in the year, the Lions had previously released him. How bad is it that two bad, depth deprived teams don't want Franklin.
Then I read Huard was released by SF. The main reason for that one, was Nate Davis' progress was would have been impeded if Huard was the third string.
All of this leads me to think that anyone on our team (or at least 75% of them) could be cut, and not start on any other team. Which leads me to my expectations of this season. I'm hoping for a 7-9 season. If we get very lucky, 8-8 and a shot at the division if everything aligns. Reality tells me that we need another draft or two to replenish our team with quality players. I don't mind Haley saying that if he's going to be responsible for the team, then he wants a direct hand in what he does best, offense.
Hopefully we can pick up some players that get cut (offensive linemen). But my prediction is a #7 or 8 draft pick.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.
0 recs |
44 comments
Email
Print
Comments
the raiders released will franklin
napoleon harris and someone else who played for us just forgot, but yeah if the raiders release 3 players that played for us that’s pretty bad
THAT'S GOOD FOR A KANSAS CITY CHIEFS "FIRST DOWN"
by I_AM_NINJA_2 on Sep 2, 2009 3:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Sammie Parker
One of these days teams will learn that if the Chiefs don’t want them they must be terrible. Oakland got lucky with Gannon one time and have picked up half the turds we’ve dropped since.
by JStoner on Sep 2, 2009 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
22 guys on the street
Is it possible that 22 of the 53 guys from last year will be on the street by game one? (Not just on other teams.) Sorry. I’m not actually motivated to run down last year’s roster right now. I know I’m slackin’.
by sunny D on Sep 2, 2009 3:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah
How many of 2009’s initial 53 will be replaced by castoffs from other teams? I suppose that would make a good poll but I’m not in the mood to get flamed for posting one sentence and a poll.
by ChiefsDude on Sep 2, 2009 3:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Well
It’s a good observation but a bad analysis, IMO.
Franklin is out of shape. He wasnt out of shape with us last year, but he was just injured. Franklin showed up to camp out of shape and was let go. I’m thinking he wasnt in good enough shape in Detroit and was let go, and probably either wasnt in good enough shape or just outright wasnt good enough in a terrible Oakland WR core.
Does that mean we were that bad? No. He was a rookie. Why would we have drafted him only to let him go without a chance. Hell, some of us thought he’d be our deep ball threat. It just never happened. He didnt play much anyway.
“anyone on our team (or at least 75% of them) could be cut, and not start on any other team.”? Well it depends how you look at that. 75% of the team would include starters and backups. If any of our backups could start elsewhere, either we have a good player starting already or the another team has a terrible player starting. Most backups wouldnt be starters anywhere else either. Thats why theyre backups. There are some exceptions such as good players getting stuck behind great players, or developing players who are ready to play.
My point is if youre going to talk about anyone on our team not being able to start elsewhere, then you can only talk about the starters. It makes no sense to say “none of our backups could start anywhere else” and thats the general idea of what is being said. So if you mean 75% of our STARTERS couldnt start anywhere else…then I REALLY have to disagree with you. Cassel, Johnson, Albert, Waters, Bowe, Dorsey, Jackson, DJ, Flowers. Thats 9 out of 22 starters that could easily start elsewhere. All but Jackson were apart of the team last year. Then you have guys like Page, Pollard, Carr, Vrabel, Charles, who I would think could find a starting job, but maybe not as likely.
Franklin wasnt a starter. Huard wasnt the starter in 08 but Croyle went down so he ended up the starter. Pat Thomas..well..that guy was a starter but we DID have a terrible LB core so I can see that.
Something I dont understand. You said that “anyone on our team (or at least 75% of them) could be cut, and not start on any other team. Which leads me to my expectations of this season. I’m hoping for a 7-9 season” How do you come to that conclusion. 75% of our players wouldnt start on another team so we’re going to have a 7-9 season? I just dont see the logic in that statement..if 75% of our players couldnt start elsewhere, then what in the world would make us improve from 2-14 to 7-9?
THEN, you go on to say that you predict we get the #7 or #8 draft pick. If we go 7-9, we’ll be closer to #10-#15 in the draft.
I may have misunderstood what you meant by some of your comments, but that would be why I’m questioning them. If I’m misunderstanding..please..help me understand.
by Petey14 on Sep 2, 2009 4:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
OH!
I forgot the most important thing..the thing that made me read this article was the title
“were we worse than 2-14?”
How could we be worse than 2-14 if we lost 10 games by 7 points or less, 7 of them being by 7 or less?
IMO, we would have crushed Detroit if we played them. I think we were BETTER that 2-14, but we couldnt play a complete game so we lost a few at the end. We lost to SD twice by 1 point. Thats 2 winnable games, plus Tampa Bays unlikely comeback. Thats atleast 3 games we could have..and should have..won. We were robbed because of our inability to control the clock and keep the defense off the field. The Raiders had a better record than us. Do you think they were a better team? I dont.
by Petey14 on Sep 2, 2009 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
damnit
correction. If we lost 10 games by 10 points or less…7 of them being by 7 or less.
by Petey14 on Sep 2, 2009 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
7 games by 7 points or less doesn't hold water to me.
“You are what your record says you are”
85% of all the games in the NFL are won/lost by 7 points or less. It doesn’t mean anything. Good teams find ways to win and bad teams find ways to lose. It really is that simple.
I love using the Pats as an example for this: How many times have the Patriots won a game by Tom Brady driving the offense down the field and win the game with a last second Adam Vinatieri field goal???
I don’t know how many times exactly but, it seems like almost every time I watch them play, that’s how it goes down… Especially in the playoffs.
My point is that they are obviously a very good team and they have learned how to win those close games. They have practically made an artform out of it. Good teams win and bad teams lose. This will be a good team but, it’s going to take some time.
by Chiefsfan1970 on Sep 2, 2009 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
It doesnt hold water
at all because its “what if” scenarios. But if we go 2-14 and get blown out each game, id be much more upset than if we lost several games that were close.
The Pats are a rare example. There arent many teams in history who have done what they have done. But youre talking about the past. The days of the Pats winning so many games a season by a FG are over. They had the highest powered offense and the largest margin of victory the year they lost the superbowl to the giants. The Pats had a strong defense to go with a barely average offense before that season.
I think its funny that you brought up “You are what your record says you are” to me when I wasnt the original person who mentioned being better or worse than our record. I was responding to the posters question…Were we worse than 2-14? I’ll address that with the same question I ended my comment with. The Raiders had a better record. Do you think they were the better team? I really dont.
“You are what your record says you are” doesnt hold water with me because teams dont play the same schedule. 1 team could coast to the playoffs on a 13-3 record and lose in the first round because they had an easy schedule. Ring any bells? Oh…thats the 2003 Chiefs. Another team could make the playoffs on a tough schedule going 9-7 or so and end up nearly winning the Superbowl (Arizona).
by Petey14 on Sep 2, 2009 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was only responding to the 7 games by 7 points or less part of it.
I actually agree with what you say regarding schedule, etc. All those thing should be taken into account. My point is that regardless of circumstances, good teams find ways to win, even when they are up against a “better” team. Any given Sunday, any team can win in the NFL but, the good teams tough it out and scratch and claw to win the close games. We did not do that last year.
So, I still believe in most cases, Bill Parcells was right when he said “You are what your record says you are”. I actually think it is one of the greatest quotes ever by a football coach. And it is one that forces a team to take responsibility for their record.
Simply put: Winners win!
by Chiefsfan1970 on Sep 2, 2009 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just dont agree
with the quote because records dont tell circumstances. The Pats went 11-5 with Cassel. Was the Pat’s an 11-5 team? I dont think so. If theyda had Brady, they might have went undefeated AGAIN. Okay..thats reaching a bit but I think they would have been better than 11-5 and made the playoffs.
I think you are only what your record say you are in certain circumstances. I dont believe the Chiefs were in that circumstance. We went 2-14..with a 3rd string QB..and left wins on the field. 7 games by 7 or less..we left some wins out there. If Brodie would have been playing, maybe he would have completed that pass to keeep the drive alive against the Jets. Maybe he could have moved the chains a couple more times against SD or TB, giving them less time to come back and win.
I know these are all what if situations and I usually dont go by them. But we had ALOT of things wrong with the team last year, and managed to nearly upset several teams. We didnt do it last year..but I expect some of those games to swing our way this year. I think last years failures will be this years successes.
by Petey14 on Sep 2, 2009 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
7 games by 7 or less
We lost 14 games, so half our losses were by 7 points or less. That is actually pretty typical.
Losing a total of 14 games is what is not typical.
Rectal Froth
by The Donger on Sep 2, 2009 7:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you drive down field w/ 1 min left to set up a 15 yard game winning field goal
and your kicker shanks it you didn’t deserve to win? When the giants beat the pats in the superbowl they were a better team or did they just have a better game? The pats beat them a few weeks back so who’s better. What I’m tryin to say is a record can be misleading because we were a 2-14 team that played like an 8-8 team there’s just to much to factor in when you say a team is what there record says they are. IMO
THAT'S GOOD FOR A KANSAS CITY CHIEFS "FIRST DOWN"
by I_AM_NINJA_2 on Sep 2, 2009 6:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
THANK YOU
FINALLY someone sees it the way I do.
by Petey14 on Sep 2, 2009 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mean through Rose colored Glasses?
The Chiefs barely scraped their way into the playoff by shear LUCK in 2006.
The Chiefs Sucked in 2007.
The Chiefs sucked even harder in 2008.
The Chiefs are gonna be a medocre team in 2009 battling to lift themselves out of the basement of the WORST DIVISION in football.
I believe they are on the right path, and improving….
but to say we were a 2-14 team that played like an 8-8 team is about as accurate as to say babies come from storks. It’s a nice way to put it that won’t offend the senses or bring up a subject people don’t want to talk about; but it’s still al load of bullshit.
The Chiefs played like a 2-14 team last year, and until we see otherwise that’s exactly what they are.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
by Texas Chief on Sep 2, 2009 9:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
I wouldnt of went as far as to say we played like we were 8-8. But I dont believe we played like we were 2-14 either. And I dont believe the Lions would have beaten us had we played each other. I dont believe all teams records indicate how they played. Did they play like they were 4-12 2 years ago? I’d have to say yes..they did. They were shitty. But do I think they played worse last season than 2 years ago? No. If anything, they played at the same level.
The OL had Trent runnin for his life in 06 and he got hit. The OL had Huard and Croyle hurtin in 07. The OL killed Croyle AND Huard in 2008, and woulda killed Thigpen if he wasnt so quick.
Its the same recurring problem..and thats whats REALLY holding us back.
by Petey14 on Sep 3, 2009 2:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah...
glad I got you to read it with that subject line! But, my point was, yes, we could have won a few more games, but in my mind, it was due to us staying in the game and having a chance to win. That’s always the variable, coaching. Can a good coach win with bad players? And, can a bad coach lose with good players (Wade Phillips with SD and Dallas)?
I just think we did not have many top tier players. Other teams make take some of our players as depth, but we don’t have many players that a team would go gaga over (sans TG, DBowe) BA is still a few years away from elite status (if he gets there). We were bad last year, and the players that have left, don’t seem to garner much interest.
by kc571 on Sep 2, 2009 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah
Okay. That makes sense to me..I see where you were going with that now. I agree. Staying in the game and having a chance to win last year, combined with better coaching this year should equal more wins. If thats what you are saying…I agree 100%.
Of course, there are many more factors that are included, but alot of those can be attributed to coaching. The attitude of the team, the schemes, the way we practice, being in shape, etc.
We dont have many top tier players. But I think we have alot of potential top tier players. I think our secondary could end up being one of the top groups in the league. I also think our defense as a whole could be a top defense within a couple of seasons.
by Petey14 on Sep 2, 2009 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our record...
We could sweep the Raiders, beat Cincy, Cleveland, take one from Denver. That’s five wins. Washington is winnable. And we could take one from SD. I watch a lot of Eagle games, and I even think if our D plays, we may be able to squeak out of there with a W. Plus or minus one or two…and that’s my reasoning.
by kc571 on Sep 2, 2009 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I think we’ll sweep Raiders, beat Cincy, Cleveland, sweep Denver (I know we normally split but those guys are gunna be pretty bad this year..) 6 wins. I think Washington is possible. I also think jacksonville and buffalo are beatable.
Thats potentially 9 wins. But I’m not making any predictions until after the entire preseason.
by Petey14 on Sep 2, 2009 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
we will beat the cowboys before we beat the eagles
mark my words lol
THAT'S GOOD FOR A KANSAS CITY CHIEFS "FIRST DOWN"
by I_AM_NINJA_2 on Sep 2, 2009 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you Petey But
Remember Herm’s philosophy was to allow all players to get themselves in shape and study their playbook on their own terms. With how much weight our team lost over the offseason I’m guessing the players didn’t get in very good shape. and the way we depended on Tony G. (future hall of famer) it would also appear that most of the guys weren’t learning the playbook, and finally changing the offensive sceme halfway through the season pretty much killed all knowledge those players learned through offseason/training camp and pre-season of 07-08. So many of our players from last years squad who went to other teams first took one hell of beating, then have not experianced the harsh but needed treatment from Haley, These guys have really went thrugh a football season of hell with no where to find comfort that it wasn’t their fault. what our program did to those players will end most of their careers just because they lost the fight and confidence players need.
Touchdown
Kan..Sa...CITY
-Mitch Holthus
by 90,32,58,31,16 on Sep 2, 2009 4:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure what you mean.
Franklin has noone to blame but himself. He was lazy, out of shape, and had a bad attitude when Haley confronted him and he was let go. Period. You realize how many young players we had last year? Theres no way that a couple seasons of Herm Edwards (more like 1 season considering the youth movement we went through last season) destroyed their futures. Alot of players and many starters from last year are returning..dont forget that. The entire secondary, DJ, Dorsey, Tank, Hali, Albert, Waters, Bowe, Charles, LJ…so if our program destroyed the careers of the guys that left, why didnt it destroy the careers of the guys who are still here?
We lost ALOT of close games. That could be attributed to bad coaching, not being in shape, not knowing the playbook well enough, not working hard enough, not practicing hard, ALOT of things. Talent on the team had less to do with it than I think people realize (with the exception of the offensive line). I think we have alot of talent on defense that was miscast in the Herm Edwards Tampa 2. The defensive changes alone will help the team. Especially when these guys get the 3-4 down pat.
by Petey14 on Sep 2, 2009 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think there's any question..
I think the Lions could have beat us…I don’t for the life of me know how we pulled out two wins…Petey…I could care less how we lose….it’s a loss man .. if we didn’t suck ass we could have found a way back to win one of those games…we were pathetic…there’s no defending the Chiefs of last 2 years..It’s weird seeing how Herm came in and destroyed our team. He destroyed the Chiefs…the more I think about that the angrier I get..
by krayfish on Sep 2, 2009 4:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Seriously?
I cant think of any other Chiefs fan who honestly believes the Lions could have beat us.
Herm destroyed our team? What about Vermeil? What about the Vermeil/CP neglect to the defense? What about Vermeils refusal to play young players? What about Vermeil/CP failing to find replacement players to the aging offensive line?
I’m not a fan of Herm Edwards. I dont like him either. But I dont think you can blame him for the fallout of this team. Think about it..before Herm we had a terrible defense and an aging offense. By the time Herm tookover we had either lost or were about to lose Roaf, Waters, Richardson, Green, Weigman, Hall..we had enough holes on defense and NOONE to replace the greats we had on offense.
Herm was too conservative, tried to run a defense that didnt fit our players.
And yes, a loss is a loss, but the score of the loss is soemthing that either brings optimism or pessimism to the team. If we lose by a few points and could win the game, its less devastating to a team than it is to get blown out. Winning by a few points is extremely disappointing..but getting blown out..thats the worst.
Krayfish..you are a very pessimistic person. Very. Just by your comments…its obvious. You know..before the season we went 4-12..we were the only team in the league other than the Steelers that had not lost more than 10 games since 1988. EVERY other team had lost ATLEAST 11 games at one point or another since ‘88. So we’ve had 2 bad seasons. So what? It happens. When you look at the facts..we should have seen it coming. What made us think we could win without a defense AND without an offense? We knew damn well we had noone to replace the HOF linemen we had, noone to replace 1 of the best blocking FB’s in the league, noone to replace a 4000+ yard passer, AND we already had the worst defense in the league!!
Quit crying. We won 2 games and easily could have won more games if we didnt have a coach who believed in letting players get in shape themselves and study on their own time. 2 losses by a combined 2 points? Losing to TB after winning 24-3 near halftime? A loss may be a loss no matter what, but the score tells a story.
by Petey14 on Sep 2, 2009 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In defense of Vermeil
He tried to draft defense. He just sucked at it.
Rectal Froth
by The Donger on Sep 2, 2009 7:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I CANT feel my legs........
R U Okay??????
by krayfish on Sep 2, 2009 4:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm tired of all the excuses people make.
If you are a good team, you find ways to win. if you aren’t then you lose to the good team. It’s that simple.
Every team gets their talent from the same draft and the NFL is designed to make it fair for every team to build a winner if, they play their cards right. this team has enough talent to win and they did last year too. it was a lack of preparation and an overall losers mentalty on this team. That can be blamed on the coach but, whats the point of that.
if the Chiefs win this year, it will be because they showed up prepared and because they are willing to do the things the other guys won’t do to win. This is a hungry team and I think an even hungrier Coach. We may have a few rough weeks but, by mid season, we will be putting a winner on the field.
by Chiefsfan1970 on Sep 2, 2009 5:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Its NOT that simple
otherwise there wouldnt be a thing called upsets. Bad teams upset good teams. Does that make them a good team? No.
Earlier, you mentioned the Pats being a great example of finding ways to win. But when they had the highest powered offense in the history of the game, they couldnt win the superbowl. Its not like they had a weak defense either.
If the Chiefs win this year, its a combination of many things, but because of the fact that we have ALOT of players still on the roster and playing, I think its going to be more on the coaching. Our defense last year was miscast. You’ve gotta have a stong DL and good Coverage safeties in the tampa 2. Pollard is a typical SS..not a good fit in the tampa 2. We didnt have a strong DL. WTF were we doing playing tampa 2? IDK..ask Herm Edwards and BLAME him.
The BIGGEST changes to the Chiefs havent been the players. Its been the way the team is handled. Its the schemes we’ll be playing. Its the attitude.
by Petey14 on Sep 2, 2009 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So in our 3-4 D
Are we going to continue to give large cushions to the WR’s?
Is this just a pre-season thing or the real Chiefs secondary?
Why are Page and Pollard sitting 2nd team D?
Boone who we thought was going to be a DE backup is gone?
All questions re coaching vs scheme
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on Sep 2, 2009 5:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The way I see it
the scheme is apart of coaching. I dont see how scheme and coaching can be seperated..its the coach who sets the scheme.
Page and Pollard sitting 2nd team D..you know damn well these preseason spots dont mean anything. How long did Bowe sit 3rd team? Page is injured anyway. I never heard that Pollard was 2nd team D but I know he got nicked against Houston I believe.
Not surprised about Boone. Really..I’m not. I wont be surprised if Copper gets cut either and hes been working 1st team.
by Petey14 on Sep 2, 2009 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this
At a certain point, players need to make plays regardless of what scheme they’re in, but having a scheme that fits your players obviously helps. I think our defense has looked much better (so far) than last year’s. Of course, pre-season isn’t the greatest way to predict regular season performance, but that is really all we have to go off of. The reason for this improvement is that the organization realized our teams deficiencies (run D, pass rush) and then changed to a scheme that more aggressively rushes the passer and then drafted 2 run-stuffing lineman. We still have some tweaking to do obviously (I don’t think there is a team you cannot say this about) but we have the foundation to be a very good defense.
On offense, I think the same thing is being tried, albeit slower and less successfully. They saw our strengths (which they seem to think is our RBs), and moved to fix weaknesses (drop back QB, WR, OL). The Cassel trade was a solid move that I don’t think anyone saw coming. It remains to be seen how he does in KC, but I don’t think anyone will argue our QB situation is worse now than it was when Pioli/Haley arrived. We made some aquisitions at WR and OL positions, but the results haven’t been that good. Goff has gotten shoved around for the most part, Toomer has been cut, Engram hasn’t played much, and Lawrence is very raw. Bowe has improved some since Haley arrived and Lelie has shown some sparks, but overall, not what we would like.
I don’t know why we haven’t been as successful on our offense. Maybe the FA pool was less talented in the positions we needed, or maybe Pioli just misevaluated. Either way, it seems he has recognized he we still have problems by trading for the 2 Miami lineman and cutting Toomer when he didn’t live up to expectations. Hopefully at least one of the Miami guys can take a starting job and perform well.
Finally, I just want to remind everyone, that the baseline of talent for most NFL teams is pretty similar. There isn’t that much difference in raw talent between team A and team B. Remember, a few scheme changes and key additions turned around Miami, Atlanta, and Baltimore from sub .500 teams to playoff teams. I’m not saying that kind of thing will happen to us, but I don’t doubt that we will win more games this season.
Sorry for the ridiculous length, and thank you if you managed to read it all.
by ajanzen on Sep 2, 2009 6:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great comment
I dont think theres a single point that I even remotely disagreed with. Theres only one point I’d add on to one of the things you said.
“Maybe the FA pool was less talented in the positions we needed, or maybe Pioli just misevaluated.”……it could also be that the FA’s we attempted to get weren’t interested in KC. I’ve been saying that for awhile and it seems that many people are saying Pioli is stupid and didnt do anything to upgrade the OL. I guess people seem to think that every FA we talk to should come to KC. Nobody knows what other OL we tried to get.
by Petey14 on Sep 2, 2009 7:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree Petey.
You can’t just throw money at a free agent and hope that they will come to KC and perform. You have to find the guys who WANT to be here and are looking to become part of something special.
by Chiefsfan1970 on Sep 3, 2009 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly!
I just dont get why some people are so quick to throw Pioli under the bus like that. Some players just dont want to go to a 6-26 team no matter how much money you throw at them. They dont care what changes we’ve made, they dont care if we’re supposed to be improved, they dont care what the media says (which isnt much..).
On the other hand, you can go after guys who care about nothing but money and throw absurd amounts of money at them and hope to have a good team and watch them implode season after season. Oh..sorry..didnt mean to bring up Al Davis.
by Petey14 on Sep 3, 2009 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Point noted Petey...however..
I think there’s two schools of thought in this debate…I am on the side of “no more excuses”. I hear all the “it’s not that easy” etc. yada yada but still the bottom line is…we SUCKED!! And your point about upsets happening in the NFL only proves our point even more.
You said it best… and I quote “Bad teams upset good teams. Does that make them a good team? No”.
So just because we found a way to bring a game within 7 points or less before we LOST, means nothing…the fact that we upset two teams during the season means nothing about us as far as being a good team..you said so yourself. Upsetting someone doesn’t make us good, it makes us luck iMO.
I love my Chiefs to the point of being neurotic about it…but self honesty is hard to come by…the ability to be honest with ones’ self when it comes to our team is difficult to come by too.
We look through rosey colored glasses at our Chiefs…we have been, still are, but hopefully not for long….deploreable. 6-26 is an abomination and an embarrassment. There is no excuses…that’s just plain horrible. Look to the future..it can only get better.
by krayfish on Sep 3, 2009 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
TOTALLY agree krayfish.
I’m tired of making excuses. You don’t have to make excuses for winning.
Still, good arguing with you Petey. Made for a lively debate. let’s hope we won’t have to talk about losing for much longer!
Go Chiefs!!!!!
by Chiefsfan1970 on Sep 3, 2009 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Herm's guys
“They are who we thought they were!”
by HowSweetItIs on Sep 3, 2009 10:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
