Green played really well yesterday, but our offense needs to be more efficient than it has been the last 3 weeks. We are more than capable of scoring more points, I think we were pretty conservative and we just weren't getting the job done on O. If our offense can come back to life AND our defense keeps this play up we will make the playoffs. [Reply]
Originally Posted by : Originally posted by KCCh!efsMan Green played really well yesterday, but our offense needs to be more efficient than it has been the last 3 weeks. We are more than capable of scoring more points, I think we were pretty conservative and we just weren't getting the job done on O. If our offense can come back to life AND our defense keeps this play up we will make the playoffs.
I agree,I wish we were scoring more points,but IMO,I believe the Chiefs played more conservatively yesterday to keep the D off of the field and to sway the time of possession to wear out the Bills.While I would definitely like to score alot more points,I do understand their approach to yesterday's second half.The Chiefs chose to run more clock on less possessions to help our D,rather than getting into a shoot-out with the Bills.It paid off.GO CHIEFS!!!! [Reply]
That's like me "stating facts" by saying Priest just isn't doing well the past five games.
You don't even know how right you are. Priest Holmes is my favorite Chiefs' player and the best RB we've possibly ever had here. But he hasn't been as effective lately. Is it his fault? Is the offensive line's? Is it the defense?
So now that I've said he's not being as effective, does that mean I don't like him? Does that make me a doubter?
NO.
The WHOLE reason this started is because some people are either too stupid or too blind to realize that criticism can be constructive and even people that are happy can realize that there's room for improvement.
There are 16.5 million colors between black and white, yet some people can't seem to see it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by : Originally posted by htismaqe
[B]
The WHOLE reason this started is because some people are either too stupid or too blind to realize that criticism can be constructive and even people that are happy can realize that there's room for improvement.
There are 16.5 million colors between black and white, yet some people can't seem to see it.
I agree that there is constructive criticism, but there's plenty of folks on this board that don't offer it. They seem intent on calling Trent a "lowercase bono" a "waste of a draft pick" and any number of other things that aren't constructive in the least, but instead show their ingrained bias against Trent. Then there are those, such as yourself, Brad, and Phobia, who might piss and moan a bit from time to time, but also give credit where it's due when Trent plays well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by : Originally posted by htismaqe People like Nap, Chuck, and others have all labelled Green a waste of a 1st round pick in the past.
I'll ALWAYS label him a waste of a 1st round pick, too. Was that his fault? Nope. It was a ridiculous move on the part of this team's management.
Has he performed better lately? Yes. Does he have poor games? Yes. Does he have career games (Miami)? Yes. I don't know where I'm going with this.... [Reply]
Originally Posted by : Originally posted by htismaqe People like Nap, Chuck, and others have all labelled Green a waste of a 1st round pick in the past.
NONE of that has happened in WEEKS, maybe even since the season began.
On 11/15/2002
ck_IN wrote:
Originally Posted by :
Any success this O has had has been directly attributable to Mr. Holmes. Green has either realized, or been made to realize, that he's not a play-maker. That's he's not a franchise QB. Mr. Green has 'Dilfered' himself and the team has benefited.
The SF game was a classic case of Green trying to not be Dilfer. I don't know who's idea it was but it's clearly obvious.
Green is and will continue to be the weak link on this teams O. Hopefully the wizkids will continue to feed Holmes. As long as they do, we have a chance. However I firmly believe that hubris will force them to give Green the ball, and he'll kill us when he tries to be the anti-Dilfer.
He's a lowercase Bono. Nothing more.
On 11/15/2002
Otter wrote:
Originally Posted by :
Green is nothing but another over-priced, mediocre talent, never was that will fall in the ranks of Bono, Grbac, DeBerg and Collins. If you haven’t seen it by now, you will in retrospect.
When Peterson is gone and NFL gurus reflect his tenure it will no doubt be known as one of his biggest and perpetual blunders.
Same ol, same ol
On 11/15/2002
Shane69 wrote:
Originally Posted by :
I guess I'm almost back to the point of giving Quinn a chance this year to see if he could be our '03 QB.
Voyager wrote:
Originally Posted by :
He would be a good backup for a team at QB. The Chiefs have been going with a short-passing game because they don't trust Green on deeper pass routes.
Originally Posted by : Originally posted by RedNeckRaider So are you going to keep f***ing doubting Green or not? :-)
:-) Probably. Believe me, I'd LOVE to have some confidence in him, it's just that when he's scrambling or rearing back to heave a deep ball, I just know it's going to be an INT. Thankfully, we haven't seen too much of either lately. [Reply]
Originally Posted by : Originally posted by htismaqe Wow, I missed 5 whole people.
The simple fact remains:
I can be critical of Green and still be happy that he is our QB.
That sampling was from a single post on a single day. I'm sure I could fine plenty more within the last couple of weeks. Hell, just look at anything football related that lazarus posts:-) He's sure to get a shot in on Green.
I'm not disputing with your argument that you can be critical and still be a fan. Of course, I'll not buy that you're happy he's the Chief's QB either. I just think that many of you that might have less than stellar opinions of Trent sometimes pass over some of the negative things that are posted, whereas people like CP really take not of it. Eventually it builds up and you get a post like the initial one for this thread. [Reply]
