Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Joe Montana. I was a huge fan of his as a kid. Was a huge 9ers fan as a result. They were my NFC team. Being in SoCal, I was naturally a Raiders fan. I liked a few Chiefs players at the time as I was too young to realize you couldn’t like rival teams. When Joe was traded, I burned my 9ers gear (literally) and started rooting for the Chiefs more. When the Raiders moved to Oakland, they became the Traitors in my mind, and it sealed my loyalty to the Chiefs. Been a fan since then.
@SBV_Eagle_Bull 281483 wrote:
I think they should change it to the Washington Americans, and keep the logo and colors.
First time I read that I thought, how could you keep the logo and colors, wouldn’t it make more sense to change it to red white and blue. Then I realized that you meant it that way, since Native Americans are the ORIGINAL Americans (hence the native part, duh). Ironically, I know a lot of ignorant and bigoted people (none of them i consider friends) who would have a sh!t fit if they did that. Then again I like pissing them off, so I’m all for it!
Supposedly there was a new poll out that people would be willing to accept a change of name to the Redtails (as in a redtail hawk). It would let them keep the feathers on their logo, as well as their team colors, but be more PC.
Im kinda torn on it. I think it is insulting. I mean, you wouldnt allow a team to be called the LA wetbacks, San Fran Chinks, Georgia N-words, etc and it is pretty much the same thing. That having been said, I dont think redskin is actually used as a slur against Native Americans anymore (then again I am not connected to the Native American community). I wouldnt be opposed to a change, and I think it is just a matter of time for when it will happen.
I also dont think this has any implications on the Chiefs. Chiefs is a title in Native American culture, it isnt an insult, so I would think we would be ok. This argument came up in my high school (The Braves) and it got shot down because of the fact that a brave was honorable (As long as we didnt have a mascot that made an idiot of himself dressed in native american garb).
I know the team/NFL/ apparel companies do not want the change because it would come at a huge cost of re-designing logos, merchandise, discarded of already manufactured merchandise, etc.
azchiefsfan;257899 wrote:As has been mentioned, in a somewhat meandering way, the only way the Colts could have got any picks for Manning was to have another team assume his contract or to have picked up the $28 million bonus to keep him under contract so they could negotiate with another team for picks. What would have been the point? That $28 million would pay for 3 or 4 top free agents or to buy the first round draft picks outright. Severing the contract was the only way to free up the $50 million total bonus/salary they would have been responsible for.Why not ask him to renegotiate his contract. He took a 9 million dollar pay cut from what he was supposed to make with the Colts. So why not go up to him and say, “look, you (and a couple other guys) are the only guys getting it done on this team, we need to sign better players to get YOU to the superbowl again, but we dont have the money for it, lets restructure your contract?” Maybe they did and he told them to eff off. Maybe they missed out … who knows …
Seek;257896 wrote:What did the Colts have last year that makes you think they could Salvage this year even with Manning. The Colts were on the decline even with Manning the year before.Keeping Manning would only delay what needs to be done, and keep Manning in a situation that he does not need to be in.
My one argument against that idea is that last year the colts had pretty much everything that they had the year before, except Manning. So, if they brought Manning back, maybe they would become playoff contenders again? Maybe? We will never know now.
N TX Dave;257809 wrote:But they would be in the same position in 2-4 years needing a QB and they would have at best a mid round pick and not have a chance to get a top QB that could be around for 15 years.I get that, but at the same time, if they went the route I mentioned, you could argue that they would hopefully have SOME kind of a team around that QB. Right now I feel bad for Andrew Luck. Indy has NO ONE right now really, and really no OL.
In 2-4 years, with good drafting/FA acquisition if they might have a solid team built around Manning when he retired.
Also, with regards to the money issue, I would think if cap room became an issue that prevented them from signing people, Manning would have considered restructuring his contract. According to his press conference 2 seasons ago with his new contract, he was really proud that he was going to retire as a Colt. Maybe behind the scenes he didnt want to surrender a pay cut, who knows.
I was just wondering if I was the only one who was thinking this way … apparently so.
So the KC Star has an article about the team’s spending. In short, Pioli says Clark Hunt has no control over how much he spends in the players that we get. Also, the team will be spending close to 119 million in cash this year. NOTE: 119 million in cash is different from salary cap numbers. Salary cap numbers do not include bonuses, where the cash amount does.
Here is the article:
Salary figures show Chiefs have room to spend – KansasCity.com
Here is my two cents on the whole free agency spending discussion. Look at the teams that are always predicted to be in the superbowl hunt:
Pittsburgh
New England
Green Bay
Indianapolis
Chicago
New Orleans
BaltimoreOf all those teams, how often do you hear about them getting more than one or two big name big $$$ free agents (Saints in the Drew Brees/Sean Peyton era). Chicago is the only one who seems to chase names, but they are usually people still in their prime.
The rest of the teams seem to have three things in common: great coaching, great drafting, and recent superbowl appearances if not wins (Ravens being the exception). They occasionally sign a big name free agent (maybe one every year at most) to fill a gap that came up because of injury or someone just not cutting it anymore. With great coaching, you dont need superstars, but the players look like superstars. How many times have you seen someone who is supposedly a superstar on the Steelers D, or the Colts, or Baltimore go to another team with a huge contract only to look like a huge waste of money? I honestly think it is because of the coaching (or lack there-of).
I think we are on the verge of becoming one of those teams. Look at our team over the last 3 seasons. We havent changed our players that much, but look at the increase in production. DJ is an all star consistently now. Dorsey (a Herm/CP bust) looks like a stud. D. Bowe is much more consistent.
Also, Haynesworth would have been a horrible pick for us. He is consistently out of shape and cant play 4 downs. He is not strong enough to play a NT on running downs. His skills come in his ability to make plays, and thus he is better suited as a DT in a 4-3. NE runs a hybrid defense and Haynesworth is going to play a hybrid role. I doubt you see him playing NT on a running down. He will probably only be a NT in a 3-4 when it is a passing situation, and play 3-4 DE in running situations (very similar to Richard Seymour’s role with the Pats 2-3 before he went to the Faiders).
Also, if you look at most of those teams, they RARELY seem to spend money on DL and OL free agents.
Thats my 2 cents … GO CHIEFS!
:chiefs:I think the Vikes are going to be better this year. If they stick with their offense of last year (AP right, AP left, Taylor up the middle), Favre can be very effective. Think about it, if they dont throw too much, his arm will be in decent shape by the end of the season/playoffs.
What the Vikes really lacked last year was someone to drive them down the field when the game is close. I think a well rested Favre can do that.
Plus their division is totally up in the air. GB hasnt done anything to improve over the offseason. Detroit is Detroit. The Bears have huge questions and an aging defense.
