Originally Posted by htismaqe:
And have zero rings on their fingers. Amazing how worshiped mediocrity can be in Chiefs kingdom.
It is what it is, every team has their heroes, those teams were no different.
That being said, let's hope that the Chiefs front office can get back to work on putting together an OL that will keep our spendy world-class QB from running for his life on every play and not count on "player xyz should be back next year" as their answer to the issue we saw in the SB. [Reply]
Originally Posted by GloryDayz:
It is what it is, every team has their heroes, those teams were no different.
That being said, let's hope that the Chiefs front office can get back to work on putting together an OL that will keep our spendy world-class QB from running for his life on every play and not count on "player xyz should be back next year" as their answer to the issue we saw in the SB.
He ran for his life on every play on ONE game. You're completely overreacting.
They're going to work on the line this offseason, make no mistake about it. They won't sit and do nothing.
Fisher and Schwartz are coming back so you might as well prepare yourself for that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
He ran for his life on every play on ONE game. You're completely overreacting.
They're going to work on the line this offseason, make no mistake about it. They won't sit and do nothing.
Fisher and Schwartz are coming back so you might as well prepare yourself for that.
They 100% should be back. But "back", especially for Fish, might not be 100%. We'll see, but it's up to the front office to make sure that, in case he's not 100%, there's a plan in place to not lose too much. Training camp will be very interesting to say the least, but we all know you can't wait for training camp to decide if those people who weren't able to play in the SB, for whatever reason, aren't what we had hoped. [Reply]
Originally Posted by GloryDayz:
They 100% should be back. But "back", especially for Fish, might not be 100%. We'll see, but it's up to the front office to make sure that, in case he's not 100%, there's a plan in place to not lose too much. Training camp will be very interesting to say the least, but we all know you can't wait for training camp to decide if those people who weren't able to play in the SB, for whatever reason, aren't what we had hoped.
I'd be more concerned about Schwartz' back than Fisher's Achilles but that's just me - both of them have a lot of work to do to get back.
And I'm 100% certain they'll have a plan in place to make sure the SB doesn't happen again. I'm also pretty certain it won't involve replacing both tackles in one offseason or drafting 4 new offensive linemen or anything like that. :-) [Reply]
someone posts a picture of Roaf,
you deride 'at least there's the NFL HOF'
then you point out lack of SB rings, and query the rationale for worshipping mediocrity.
I mean, I'm even amenable to the argument that between Kelce and Gonzo, Gonzo is the mediocre one, but you seem to be saying something stronger, but also, apparently, something distinct from what I interpreted.
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Help me make sense of the line of reasoning;
someone posts a picture of Roaf,
you deride 'at least there's the NFL HOF'
then you point out lack of SB rings, and query the rationale for worshipping mediocrity.
I mean, I'm even amenable to the argument that between Kelce and Gonzo, Gonzo is the mediocre one, but you seem to be saying something stronger, but also, apparently, something distinct from what I interpreted.
We've been to the Super Bowl twice in two years but because of how the most recent one played out, people are hyper panicked about going back to the offensive line play of the early 2000's while completely ignoring the fact that the rest of the team around that line wasn't even playoff quality, let alone Super Bowl quality.
You don't build a complete team by focusing all of your resources on one unit. The team has needs at DB, LB, DE, WR, and TE in addition to the needs on the OL. Put too much in the offensive line and somewhere else is going to suffer.
Of course, then people will just bitch about that. Me? I'd rather continue to play in, and potentially win, Super Bowls. [Reply]
And for the record, I can see where you're focused on individual players, given the photo of Willie Roaf. However, this discussion goes further back than that and it isn't just about Willie Roaf.
There are people here that want Roaf, Waters, Wiegman, Shields, and Tait back, all of them, even if it means forsaking every other need the team has to do it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
And for the record, I can see where you're focused on individual players, given the photo of Willie Roaf. However, this discussion goes further back than that and it isn't just about Willie Roaf.
There are people here that want Roaf, Waters, Wiegman, Shields, and Tait back, all of them, even if it means forsaking every other need the team has to do it.
There's also people here who want to avoid drafting OL period. There's a medium balancing point. We should all be hoping that some lineman comes off the board for us in the 1st few rounds. A center in the second sounds perfect to me. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
I'm talking about building a team.
We've been to the Super Bowl twice in two years but because of how the most recent one played out, people are hyper panicked about going back to the offensive line play of the early 2000's while completely ignoring the fact that the rest of the team around that line wasn't even playoff quality, let alone Super Bowl quality.
You don't build a complete team by focusing all of your resources on one unit. The team has needs at DB, LB, DE, WR, and TE in addition to the needs on the OL. Put too much in the offensive line and somewhere else is going to suffer.
Of course, then people will just bitch about that. Me? I'd rather continue to play in, and potentially win, Super Bowls.
I don't disagree with any of that, but to think that the OL isn't the primary concern, as evidenced by what we saw in the SB and the games leading up to the SB, well I think we should have heard more about possible acquisitions for the OL than we've heard. And, sadly, I get the feeling that too many people are content with the two opt-outs, Fish, and Schwartz all coming back and being ready to play.
Maybe they will be, but that's a huge gamble for what was shown to be a critical need, a weak link, and the very group that will keep our world-class QB able to operate effectively from the pocket (if he chooses to do that). [Reply]
Originally Posted by mkp785:
There's also people here who want to avoid drafting OL period. There's a medium balancing point. We should all be hoping that some lineman comes off the board for us in the 1st few rounds. A center in the second sounds perfect to me.
There isn't a single person here who thinks we should not draft a single offensive linemen.
I'm probably the most vocal about it and even I have said I would be fine with offensive linemen in the draft. Just not 3 or 4. 2 is fine, 1 is really enough. [Reply]
Originally Posted by GloryDayz:
I don't disagree with any of that, but to think that the OL isn't the primary concern, as evidenced by what we saw in the SB and the games leading up to the SB, well I think we should have heard more about possible acquisitions for the OL than we've heard. And, sadly, I get the feeling that too many people are content with the two opt-outs, Fish, and Schwartz all coming back and being ready to play.
Maybe they will be, but that's a huge gamble for what was shown to be a critical need, a weak link, and the very group that will keep our world-class QB able to operate effectively from the pocket (if he chooses to do that).
Of course the OL is a top concern. Nobody has ever insinuated that it isn't.
But let's not forget that this conversation started with you suggesting that pursuing JJ Watt would distract the Chiefs from addressing the line, as if the team is unwilling or unable to focus on more than one priority at a time. That's really all I took exception to. The Chiefs can do more than one thing and still be successful. Not focusing 100% on the line doesn't mean they're ignoring it.
You need not worry - the Chiefs WILL address the offensive line. No, they're not going to overhaul the line and yes, it looks like Fisher and Schwartz will probably be your starting tackles next year but that doesn't mean it's going to be status quo. If anything, Veach has shown that he's not satisfied with that and he will be aggressive if necessary.
We haven't heard anything because the offseason hasn't officially started. Free agency doesn't start until March 17th so outside of the one-off cuts like Watt, you're not going to hear about a lot of activity. The fact that we've finally heard news on Fisher and Schwartz is promising considering they had said nothing leading up to now, especially with Schwartz being in radio silence for months.
Finally, don't conflate what I want with what I think will actually happen. I'm not at all "content" with the idea of a line that is Fisher - Wylie - possibly Reiter - LDT - Schwartz next season. I would not consider that ideal. But I do consider that LIKELY. I think they're working on a long-term plan here and it's possible that they're making moves this year for 2022, not 2021. In fact, several people have mentioned that Veach operates this way, so we need to be patient and let it play out. [Reply]
