Arguing with Idiots Part 2

Well, we're back.  For those of you who don't know what this is all about, I'll lay out a little scenario for you...

You're talking football with someone.  Everything seems fine.  Then they make some off-handed statement about the Chiefs that you recognize from one of BW's blogs.  They don't mean any harm, they're just taking whatever information that national media is giving them (or should I say regurgitating in their general direction) and taking it for a fact.  They continue to go on this (completely false and ridiculous) train of thought, totally unaware that you're slowly but surely starting to lose your vision from rage.

The rage isn't from someone bashing the Chiefs.  That's to be expected when your team is coming of a 4-12 season.  The rage is that someone is making an argument that is so flawed that you're pretty sure it shouldn't even be legal to bring up (stupid 1st amendment!).

What do you do?  While I know it would be intensely satisfying to slap a rear naked choke on the guy and whisper "shhhhhhhhh" into his ear as he slowly loses consciousness, that probably isn't the most productive solution to your problem.  That and people take it really personally when you do that just to shut them up (strange, isn't it?).  What, then, can you do?

You're in luck, because I have here a few simple facts for a few simply wrong statements that if used correctly (and directed at a rational person) should quickly and painlessly end the debate. 

Warning:  these arguments are rendered completely ineffective against irrational, stubborn, myopic, overconfident, inattentive, racist, unclean, ugly, and/or stupid people.  They probably won't work on Chargers fans either.  But I repeat myself.

Warning # 2:  The word idiot is in no way affiliated with Arrowhead Pride and reflects solely upon the person or persons writing this post.  If you are offended by the word idiot, well, uh.... don't ever turn on your TV or go on the internet or listen to the radio or have a conversation with pretty much anyone this side of the Pope.  Because if THAT word offends you, you're gonna be SHOCKED by what's out there.  And try to remember, this is all in fun!  

So here we go...

Idiot Argument #1.  "Why on EARTH would the Chiefs take a RB?  They already have Jamaal Charles, and don't try to feed me that "he's going to play slot WR a lot" line.  Switching positions at this level is always a bad idea!"

We're going to start off with a simple one.  Here are the facts you need.

First,  Dexter McCluster was actually recruited as a WR.  He played that position his first two years of college, then was switched to RB/WR in order to get him more touches.

Need proof?  In his last 2 seasons McCluster caught 88 passes for 1,145 yards.  Many of those were caught out of the slot WR position.  He actually caught more passes in the last 2 years than FIRST ROUND WR Demaryius Thomas (remember, this was while also rushing for over 1,800 yards in those 2 years).

McCluster is a rare player, one that's played slot WR extensively along with RB.  He can do both.  

Which moves us on too....

Idiot Argument #2.  "Well, OK, sure, he was successful at the college level.  But he's way too small to hack it in the pro's.  That puny little dude is going to get CLOBBERED!"

Now this argument has some (kind of) merit.  It's certainly a concern, but not nearly as much as people seem to think.

McCluster IS small at 5'8" and 165 pounds.  But here's the kicker.  His height actually HELPS him in this case.  Anyone here ever do any mixed martial arts or wrestling (or just plain old brawling)?  Shorter guys are thicker and more dense than taller guys.  This is a natural thing from being shorter (remember BMI from health class?).  

Also, and more importantly, McCluster is a strong, strong man.  He benched 225 pounds 20 times at the combine.  Think about that.  He was actually the 7th ranked RB in the bench press, outbenching many "power backs" that outweighed him by as much as 60 pounds!    He put that weight up only 2 fewer times than Terrance Cody, who more than doubles him in weight!  Yet no one seems to be concerned about Cody's strength...

Oh, and on one last note.  McCluster's bench press performance would've tied (with 3 others) for the BEST among all WR's. 

I think that pretty much takes care of that.  If Dexter's weak and vulnerable, I feel bad for all those other receivers that aren't as strong as he is :)

Idiot Argument #3.  "Javier Arenas was a TERRIBLE pick!  He's 5'9"!  There's no way that guy will hack it at the next level as a CB!  How's he going to even help run support at that size?"

I admit, I added the run support part just because it's so, so ignorant.  Arenas was known as one of the most PHYSICAL corners in the draft, if not the most.  How is that, you ask?  Well, you've got to go back to height/weight ratio.  The guy's 5'9" but weighs 200 pounds.  He's THICK and loves to hit.  So as far as run support goes, we couldn't have done better than him.

Now for the height issue.  This is perhaps an even worse argument than the "run support" argument.  Why?  Because we only have to look as far as our own team to find a fantastic 5'9" corner who has successfully covered taller receivers his whole career (if you don't know who I'm talking about, just give up.  Really.  Take a breather.  Rest for a while.  Then quietly admit to yourself that you don't know a thing about football). 

Corners do not, repeat DO NOT, need to be 6' tall to be successful

But you need more examples, you say?  Flowers is the exception, you say?  What about Antoine Winfield, or Leon Hall, or William Gay?  How about  Asante Samuel, Terence Newman, Mike Jenkins, and Darrelle Revis (You know, 4 of the 6 Pro Bowl Corners last year)?  None taller than 5'11".  And most shorter than that.

5'9" is an acceptable height for a corner who's got great timing, anticipation, and closing speed.  Does Arenas have those?  Yep.  Does he have an impressive resume?  Well, unless you find All-SEC 2 years in a row and 2nd team All-American his senior year to be unimpressive, not to mention being named on Alabama's All-Decade team.  If you like those kinds of things, then yes, he's got an impressive resume.

Oh, and he also had 5 sacks his senior year, the most of any CB in college football.  

Idiot Argument #4.  "The Chiefs should've taken a NT and an OLB in this draft.  They suck!"

Look, I'm not going to debate whether or not the Chiefs should've taken (insert position here) on draft day.  Frankly, it didn't go down exactly the way I was expecting.  So here's a little analogy for you (I've used it before, but I want to be sure you have it at your disposal so you don't freak out when confronted by this argument).

Let's say you head to your favorite restaurant.  You think that you're in the mood for steak.  You haven't had it in a while, and you're very hungry for it.  Then you get there and they serve you a great plate of ribs which, incidentally, you ALSO haven't had in a while.  You know that the steak would've been good, but aren't you still happy with the ribs?  Are they any less tasty?  And hey, can't you always get steak next time?

We had other needs, sure.  But we also addressed needs.  Just because McCluster isn't Kindle doesn't make him any worse a player.  And just because Arenas isn't a NT doesn't mean he didn't fill a need and add talent to our team.  Same with Berry, and Asamoah, and all the rest.  (The draft you thought they would do was the steak, by the way.  The players we actually got were the ribs.  Just in case that didn't land as well as I'd hoped).

So there you have it.  You're now armed with  easy and logical rebuttals to a few more of the common "problems" with our team.  Make no mistake, we have issues, but the ones talked about here aren't those issues.  They're rather the result of a lot of copycat reporting and sound bite re-using that the national media tries to pass off as coverage of a smaller market NFL team.  

Now go out there and find an Idiotic argument to shoot down!  Actually, don't worry about that part.  They'll find you.  They always do...