- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Canada;232270 wrote:With Dick Vermeils team!!
Just because I am tired of something does not mean I have to ignore, nor does it mean I have to stop talking about it. Im tired of work, but I still go every day and I still do my job every day.
But why wouldn’t you ignore it, if you could do so without penalty?
Just admit that you love when people p*** you off on here. That’s why you are SOOOOO fond of lil ole me.
DMN;232219 wrote:Exactly!!…. but I have tried this angle and it didn’t work I hope it pans out better for you. Haha.He us enjoying the negative attention. Almost all of his post are in this thread complaining about the same thing. I won’t be debating with a closes minded skeptic no more.
Seek;232274 wrote:He us enjoying the negative attention. Almost all of his post are in this thread complaining about the same thing. I won’t be debating with a closes minded skeptic no more.Hmm those who hide from the facts seem to be the ones that are closed minded. Wearing the rose colored glasses.
chief31;232272 wrote:But why wouldn’t you ignore it, if you could do so without penalty?Just admit that you love when people p*** you off on here. That’s why you are SOOOOO fond of lil ole me.
Because I like my job. I enjoy working even though sometimes i get tired of it. I like to discuss things with people on here, but when they start to take shots at me/others, I do the same back to them.
chiefsrule;232275 wrote:Hmm those who hide from the facts seem to be the ones that are closed minded. Wearing the rose colored glasses.Here we go again…optimists are not realistic. What FACT have you brought up anywhere in this thread?
I think the biggest facts that you guys who are saying that we were a bad team with a favorable schedule are forgetting a few key facts that blows your entire theory out of water. Who led the league in touchdowns? Who lead the league in receptions? Who lead the league in rushing? In those categories our guy were at or near the best in the NFL. That was not a fluke and a bad team playing bad teams would not be able to put up the numbers we did. There, now let’s see how you try to twist this into a negative.
matthewschiefs;232259 wrote:That’s not what i suggested at all but good job making yet anther excuse to why they won the divisonHe’s good at that! He is also very annoying.
chief31;232266 wrote:Wait, you exposed the other teams in our division as unable to beat lesser competition, and you didn’t intend to suggest that they were not, themselves, the highest quality opponent?Our division was below .500 for the year. And, if you just count the other three teams in our division, they won just 43.8% of their games.
And all of the AFC West teams played a sub-.500 schedule. (Well below .500)
All logic suggests that we had a very easy road to the playoffs.
The Chiefs played very well in 2010. And, when one considers what the team had done in recent years, it is even more impressive.
But denying that we had a soft schedule as well as a weaker division is to deny the obvious facts.
Or do you honestly believe that We were in a division that was tougher than average, and that the NFC West was not a weak division to throw on our schedule? Or that getting The AFC South over the two divisions that sent two teams to the playoffs was not favorable?
I guess I just don’t understand why you refuse to accept the facts that don’t compliment The Chiefs.
I am baised in favor of The Chiefs. I just can’t figure out a way to deny unfavorable aspects of the team’s results.
Even if it is a Raiders fan telling me that Branden Albert is not a good LOT, I can’t figure out how to hide from that.
If there were no negatives, then how did we not win The Super Bowl?
What i was saying was that it was not the teams that we got as a result of our last place schedule that earned us the divison. It was the teams that EVERYONE played.
NO ONE ever said this team did not have a negative. We are just waiting till we see this team ON THE FIELD before we say our owner is cheap and we are doing nothing to imporve this team.. But since that’s not what you want you like to pretend you know more then our gm. Good luck with that. :ninerssuck::ninerssuck::ninerssuck::ninerssuck::ninerssuck:
chief31;232266 wrote:Wait, you exposed the other teams in our division as unable to beat lesser competition, and you didn’t intend to suggest that they were not, themselves, the highest quality opponent?Our division was below .500 for the year. And, if you just count the other three teams in our division, they won just 43.8% of their games.
And all of the AFC West teams played a sub-.500 schedule. (Well below .500)
All logic suggests that we had a very easy road to the playoffs.
The Chiefs played very well in 2010. And, when one considers what the team had done in recent years, it is even more impressive.
But denying that we had a soft schedule as well as a weaker division is to deny the obvious facts.
Or do you honestly believe that We were in a division that was tougher than average, and that the NFC West was not a weak division to throw on our schedule? Or that getting The AFC South over the two divisions that sent two teams to the playoffs was not favorable?
I guess I just don’t understand why you refuse to accept the facts that don’t compliment The Chiefs.
I am baised in favor of The Chiefs. I just can’t figure out a way to deny unfavorable aspects of the team’s results.
Even if it is a Raiders fan telling me that Branden Albert is not a good LOT, I can’t figure out how to hide from that.
If there were no negatives, then how did we not win The Super Bowl?
So because we had an easy schedule, we are not a good team by default?
Are you saying that we have not improved in the last 2 seasons and that we are pretty much the same as when Herm was here?
Personally, i think we have improved by leaps and bounds, is there more improvement ahead…absolutely. Were there deficiencies on last years team? CLEARLY…they were exposed at the end of the season and the playoffs. Have they addressed those deficiencies…it appears so on paper. The only thing any of us are arguing about is that the judgment on how our upgrades work out has already been passed be some. We have players that have never stepped foot on the field but judgment has already been passed on their ability. I know, I know…you are going to say that I have already passed judgment as well, but my opinion is based on what happened last season, the draft and the FAs we have picked up. All things that have already happened. You want to pick apart the team…at least wait until they do something wrong to do it.
The great thing about this subject is that the preseason is going to mean something for us. This is one of those rare times that how these guys play before it counts is going to be a good guage of where we’re at. Down in the trenches they are going to be battling to earn a spot on a shaky line. There won’t be any of the skill players out playing flag football for practice. It’s going to be a war in the trenches, making this preseason worth watching.
chiefsrule;232257 wrote:Oh my that isn’t good.
YAY!! The orange squares are gone now!! hahaha
chiefsrule;232275 wrote:Hmm those who hide from the facts seem to be the ones that are closed minded. Wearing the rose colored glasses.When on Chiefs sacred ground we wear RED colored glasses!! LOL
Rose colored glasses are reserved for sissy’s, you know, like ‘cry me a river, Rivers’! He wears rose colored glasses, considering he’s not accountable often for his own errors, rather typically blames his players/team for EVERYTHING that goes wrong during a game. Heck, he even blamed the MNF loss to KC on the torrential rains!! Apparently his rose colored glasses kept him from seeing Matt Cassel played in the same rain he did!! hahaha
TopekaRoy;232197 wrote:I’ve followed this thread from the beginning and read every post, but I haven’t commented much because you guys just keep saying the same thing over and over and over again, but I would like to throw in one more thought.My opinion (which is no better or worse than anyone else) is that signing a few elite players can put a very good team over the top – if they are players that fill a need. I don’t think the Chiefs are there yet, though. They have a very good, very young core that will continue to improve and with the moves that have been made I think the Chiefs will be better this year than they were last year, although with the tougher schedule that might not translate to a better record.
I think they are good enough to make the playoffs this year and win a game. With one more draft and another year of free agency, next year might be the time to go after some elite players and take us to the Super Bowl. I think signing those players this year wouldn’t have been enough to put us over the top and might have hampered what we could do in the future.
I believe we are on the right track and Pioli is setting us up to be very good for years to come, but you have to be smart about how you spend the money. I can wait one more year to become a dynasty if that’s what it takes.
EXCELLENT POST!
chiefsrule;232204 wrote:HaHa. Regardless this has been one of the most talked about posts on this board and has made for a great discussion. I think what some need to realize is these are just opinions on here. nobody knows what will happen. I had the opinion that Herm sucked after that ugly playoff loss his first year. Most said well we made it to the playoffs and were satisfied. I guess I strive for the best. Honestly I hope the Chiefs go 11-5 this year but with the schedule and not getting better talent in here via free agency especially on the lines I have a hard time seeing us getting to .500. BUT that is my opinion.I haven’t agreed with much you have said. Still don’t. But I will say one thing…with the tougher schedule and how much we are relying on young talent, we could wind up anywhere between 7-9 and 11-5.
7-9 or 8-8 would be a bummer, but it would not prove that your demand for a bunch of high price FAs was right.
This was not the year to blow a ton of cash on high dollar free agents. The time to do that is when we are just 1,2 or 3 players away from the Super Bowl.
Next year or the year after is when we should be making the types of moves you have been asking for this year.
Timing is everything.
azchiefsfan;232288 wrote:I think the biggest facts that you guys who are saying that we were a bad team with a favorable schedule are forgetting a few key facts that blows your entire theory out of water.I haven’t seen that mentioned anywhere.
Perhaps you are interpretting things incorrectly?
matthewschiefs;232296 wrote:What i was saying was that it was not the teams that we got as a result of our last place schedule that earned us the divison. It was the teams that EVERYONE played.NO ONE ever said this team did not have a negative. We are just waiting till we see this team ON THE FIELD before we say our owner is cheap and we are doing nothing to imporve this team.. But since that’s not what you want you like to pretend you know more then our gm. Good luck with that. :ninerssuck::ninerssuck::ninerssuck::ninerssuck::ninerssuck:
Alright. Starting at the top… Yes. We played an easy schedule, and so did all of our division. Yet the rest of our division did very poorly against an easy schedule.
Seems we actually agree here. Just that you don’t want to see that the whole situation makes for an easier road to the playoffs than all other playoff teams (Except the Seahawks, who went with a losing rtecord.
)Next … “noone said this team doesn’t have a negative. We are just waiting….”
So why not allow those who wish to speculate that opportunity?
Why not attack Canada for having formed an opinion, or anybody else? I do believe that you are the only one here who does not weigh each signing, cutting, or trade as they happen.
I have told you, if you want to wait and see… Go ahead. Nobody is trying to stop you. But you have no authority to demand that everybody else be a fan the way you say.
Canada;232302 wrote:So because we had an easy schedule, we are not a good team by default?Nope. Nobody has said that. It’s just what most of you decide was said, because you refuse to bother comprehending anything negative that is said about The Chiefs.
Canada;232302 wrote:Are you saying that we have not improved in the last 2 seasons and that we are pretty much the same as when Herm was here?More of the same.
When you decide that you don’t like what is being said, you just instantly make up things and pretend like that was what was said, because you can make an argument against the things that weren’t said.
Canada;232302 wrote:Personally, i think we have improved by leaps and bounds, is there more improvement ahead…absolutely. Were there deficiencies on last years team? CLEARLY…they were exposed at the end of the season and the playoffs. Have they addressed those deficiencies…it appears so on paper.The only thing any of us are arguing about is that the judgment on how our upgrades work out has already been passed be some.
We have players that have never stepped foot on the field but judgment has already been passed on their ability. I know, I know…you are going to say that I have already passed judgment as well, but my opinion is based on what happened last season, the draft and the FAs we have picked up. All things that have already happened. You want to pick apart the team…at least wait until they do something wrong to do it.
How is your judgement different?
You seem to have tried to explain that it is based on the events that have occurred in the past year. But do you really believe that someone else is passing a judgement through some sort of time machine?
Chiefsrule is using the exact same evidence to formulate his opinion, as you are.
Arguing about how that evidence can possibly lead to such different views is good.
But by calling a newly active member a troll, a Raider fan, or just trying to label him as a lesser fan is not helping anything.
And trying to declare that your judgement is based on good sound logic, while your opposition’s judgement, based on the exact same evidence, is somehow based in fantasy is ridiculous.
- The topic ‘Hold your horses…’ is closed to new replies.