Originally Posted by Wallcrawler:
Did you revisit what was taking place on the football field when you had that take?
The Kansas City Chiefs were off to a historically bad start under Spags at the time he was under fire. Sticking to his guns on guys like Hitchens, Sorenson, Niemann, and playing Chris Jones out of position with no adequate replacement in the middle led to a 100% red zone failure rate for what was it, 8 games?
Reach the 20, you're guaranteed points.
The decisions that Steve Spagnuolo was making with the personnel group that he had simply were not good decisions at the time, and he was rightfully criticized at the time.
How anyone would fault themselves for wanting a guy fired for putting out an NFL historically bad product is beyond me.
Andy stuck with his guy because that's what he does, and some players were added, some players got more time in the game, and some players got broomed and it all worked out later.
But make no mistake about it, anyone wanting Spags fired for that abysmal performance wasn't wrong. The NFL is a what have you done for me lately business, and at that time he was under fire, he was doing a horrific job with the defense.
Originally Posted by TambaBerry:
Something I've been thinking about this morning, I can't believe I ever wanted Spags gone. That take was so hilariously bad and I'm so happy to be wrong.
Dude....why would you have ever thought that? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Skyy God:
The reality is that, with 3 SBs in 5 years, the rest of the league isn’t going to help the Chiefs in player for picks trades.
Hill, a likely HOFer, was the exception and probably a cautionary tale against giving us draft capital.
You have to remember that as a GM in the NFL your enemy is not the Chiefs. Your enemy is every other team in the league. Anyone that refuses to make themselves better because they're afraid of what the Chiefs might do with a pick is destined for failure. The Titans saw fit to trade a 2025 3rd round pick for him, so anyone else that would have been made better with Sneed has to live with the fact that they refused to give up anything better than the Titan's 3rd round pick in 2025 to get him. You worry about making your own team better at the least possible expense and everything else is secondary. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RedinTexas:
You have to remember that as a GM in the NFL your enemy is not the Chiefs. Your enemy is every other team in the league. Anyone that refuses to make themselves better because they're afraid of what the Chiefs might do with a pick is destined for failure. The Titans saw fit to trade a 2025 3rd round pick for him, so anyone else that would have been made better with Sneed has to live with the fact that they refused to give up anything better than the Titan's 3rd round pick in 2025 to get him. You worry about making your own team better at the least possible expense and everything else is secondary.
That's how it SHOULD be but it's not. In the last five to six years you make a strong case as to say the Chiefs are the only team that has been "winning." Much of the thr rest is tributes to Tom Brady (on two different teams) and a one year (loaded up to fail later) wonder by the Rams.
So no, the Chiefs are the one team to don't make better. Trading with them high pucks makes less sense than trading with a division rival. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThyKingdomCome15:
That's how it SHOULD be but it's not. In the last five to six years you make a strong case as to say the Chiefs are the only team that has been "winning." Much of the thr rest is tributes to Tom Brady (on two different teams) and a one year (loaded up to fail later) wonder by the Rams.
So no, the Chiefs are the one team to don't make better. Trading with them high pucks makes less sense than trading with a division rival.
Yeah, you might want to be careful about making the Chiefs better, but we see that the Titans traded with the Chiefs, so if you're another team that could have used Sneed, how do you justify not trading for him when he could have been had fairly cheaply. If the Titans were going to do it anyway, what difference would have made if you had done the deal with slightly better compensation for the Chiefs? [Reply]
Originally Posted by RedinTexas:
Yeah, you might want to be careful about making the Chiefs better, but we see that the Titans traded with the Chiefs, so if you're another team that could have used Sneed, how do you justify not trading for him when he could have been had fairly cheaply. If the Titans were going to do it anyway, what difference would have made if you had done the deal with slightly better compensation for the Chiefs?
Yeah, I agree with you there. I guess the CB market has lost trade value then. Sneed is a better player than Marcus Peters but we got a second for him.
It's disappointing any way you slice. Veach said they were happy to keep him but this is a cap dump move. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Skyy God:
The reality is that, with 3 SBs in 5 years, the rest of the league isn’t going to help the Chiefs in player for picks trades.
Hill, a likely HOFer, was the exception and probably a cautionary tale against giving us draft capital.
Tyreek Hill is a unicorn special player, there will never be another one of him, Sneed isn't that guy. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Skyy God:
The reality is that, with 3 SBs in 5 years, the rest of the league isn’t going to help the Chiefs in player for picks trades.
Hill, a likely HOFer, was the exception and probably a cautionary tale against giving us draft capital.
To be fair, Chiefs players have a lot more wear and tear than most [Reply]
Not gonna lie that I wobbled heavily on Spags at times.
Andy had moments that made me crazy but NEVER wanted to move away from him. The only game that made me question him was the Colts 45-44 playoff comeback. That game shook a lot of us. [Reply]
