With the end of the decade, it's time for us to select our all-decade team for the 2010s. Credit to Direckshun for the idea; I'm just implementing it.
Here are the rules:
1. I'll put up lists of position groups one at a time.
2. Each list will contain guys who had at least one notable stat line in their career. I'll generally put them in descending order of some key stat.
3. The stats will contain ONLY their body of work between 2010 and 2019 for the Chiefs. No pre-2010 stats and no stats for other teams.
4. The number of roster spots will be the same as the number of roster spots on the 2019 Super Bowl roster for the Chiefs.
5. You can use whatever criteria you want to select the team. It can be total stats for the decade, it can be dominance in a shorter period, it can be playmakers who didn't screw up badly, whatever. It's your call. Feel free to use any criteria not listed in your decision. For example, if you know that Terrance Copper was an amazing blocker, you can build that into your decision.
6. In a subsequent poll we will determine which players are the starters on the all-decade team. In the first round, you're just going to fill the 53-man roster.
Our first position group is safeties. FOUR safeties will make the all-decade team. So pick FOUR safeties. [Reply]
It's amazing how Dirty Dan, who is expected to be cut every year to save $20 and a bag of chips on the cap, is solidly picked in the top 4 of safeties for the last decade. [Reply]
Parker vs. Thornhill is a tough one. One had a reasonable, but unexciting, career with the Chiefs. The other has all pro potential, but tough to say if he'll be able to sustain it. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Demonpenz:
Could you possibly add Touchdowns to this list? Or Safety's?
It's possible to do so, but it took a while to organize the data that I've got. (And I did it imperfectly at that.) I started to add in scoring, but most guys don't score so it didn't add a whole lot in my opinion. [Reply]
I know everyone bags on him for the recent stuff but prime EB won games for the Chiefs on his own. He was an absolute force.
HB obviously for what he's done for the team. He is a leader and a straight baller. Modern Polamalu.
I'm convinced Thornhill will be great for years to come. Too bad he got hurt or he would have earned the nod as well.
Sorensen has always been a JAG but really turned it on in the playoff this year. He was the catalyst for the comeback against HOU. However, he got abused by Kittle in the SB and didn't really have a good game. I would have chosen him too but he has been maddeningly mediocre. If he has another good year Id add him to the list. [Reply]
Beyond Matheiu and Berry it gets tough. I gotta give the 3rd spot to Dan Sorenson though. He's made an impact in the postseason and had been solid all along. At number 4 is where I'm most torn. Thornhill had a great rookie season and looks like he should be the choice. But it's still so early in his career, and he's already coming off of a major injury, so I hesitate. Ron Parker had a couple of good years between when he was switched to safety and when he fell off of a cliff. Branch was good, but he was only here one season. Abdullah was also good, but a short timer. So number 4 is going to be a guy with 2 years or less as a Chief. I gotta go with Thornhill because he was actually drafted by the Chiefs and is the only one that has the potential to have a long term impact at the position here [Reply]
I wonder how Kendrick Lewis would be faring in the vote if we didn't all remember that one single play of TY Hilton blasting by him to shatter our faith in the world.
It's also interesting to look at the stats for Parker versus Berry. It's a great case of how stats can be misleading. We all know that Berry made blast plays and changed games, while Parker at his peak merely prevented big plays (which is good, but it doesn't get you all-pro awards). But looking at their stats side by side, they don't look all that different. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Parker vs. Thornhill is a tough one. One had a reasonable, but unexciting, career with the Chiefs. The other has all pro potential, but tough to say if he'll be able to sustain it. :-)
That’s the one I struggled with. Recency bias will probably lead Thornhill to win, and I know Parker was shit last year, but he was pretty good for a few seasons here. [Reply]
Originally Posted by smithandrew051:
To me, Thornhill was an easy pick over Parker. Thornhill’s best already looks better than Parker’s best.
Parker was REALLY fucking good while he could run. He was a major reason the defense turned around those first 2 years. He made a fuckload of plays.
He got slow and it got bad. But while he was fast he was really good. A lot of slot corner a lot of single high stuff. Which is a lot of flexibility for a safety. Especially as bad as he ended up being at the end.
EDIT: I picked Sorensen so I don’t really have a dog in the fight but JMO. Don’t undersell what Parker did for a short time there. I probably should have picked Parker up over Abdullah. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jjchieffan:
Beyond Matheiu and Berry it gets tough. I gotta give the 3rd spot to Dan Sorenson though. He's made an impact in the postseason and had been solid all along. At number 4 is where I'm most torn. Thornhill had a great rookie season and looks like he should be the choice. But it's still so early in his career, and he's already coming off of a major injury, so I hesitate. Ron Parker had a couple of good years between when he was switched to safety and when he fell off of a cliff. Branch was good, but he was only here one season. Abdullah was also good, but a short timer. So number 4 is going to be a guy with 2 years or less as a Chief. I gotta go with Thornhill because he was actually drafted by the Chiefs and is the only one that has the potential to have a long term impact at the position here
Aside from 2018, the Chiefs have been deep at Safety since Reid got here [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I wonder how Kendrick Lewis would be faring in the vote if we didn't all remember that one single play of TY Hilton blasting by him to shatter our faith in the world.
It's also interesting to look at the stats for Parker versus Berry. It's a great case of how stats can be misleading. We all know that Berry made blast plays and changed games, while Parker at his peak merely prevented big plays (which is good, but it doesn't get you all-pro awards). But looking at their stats side by side, they don't look all that different.
It wasn’t one play dude. It was virtually every time they needed anything for 4 fucking Touchdowns. [Reply]
