he's talking about the ineptitude of the chiefs and how they're historically bad, and I couldn't help but laugh at the following paragraph:

The Chiefs quarterbacks are, in order, Tyler, Ingle and Quinn. You will say now: What are their first names? No, those ARE their first names. Tyler Thigpen is the starting quarterback and, as Joe Biden would say: Bless his heart, but he’s indescribably awful. He’s reasonably athletic, which is good, but I’m not exaggerating one bit when I tell you that he will routinely miss his target by 20 feet. I’m not saying he’s inaccurate, but the only reason he is completing 42 percent of his passes is because, occasionally, he will miss his intended target by SO MUCH, the ball will be caught by another receiver who happened to be trolling the area in case of emergency, sort of like Pete Rose being there when Bob Boone dropped that foul pop-up. The reason Thigpen has only thrown four interceptions is because defensive backs who are nowhere near the premeditated receiver (and are sometimes not even in the game) suddenly and unexpectedly find the ball hitting them in the chest.

I think we need to give Ingle at least another game or two before slamming the door on him forever, but apparently i'm more patient than most.  "i'm not saying he's innacurate, but..."

Happy Friday, everyone.

According to espn Marc Bulger doesn't want to play for Linehan now that he's been benched in favor of Trent Green.  Steven Jackson also has been outspoken in his ciriticism of the benching (I wonder if STL fans are ripping into him like we do into LJ after he talks/whines, or if he's earned the right to voice discontent without a backlash).

This has prompted several questions worthy of a lazy saturday morning, where at least in KC it's about 65 degrees, slightly breezy, and absolutely GORGEOUS.

1. Should we even discuss the idea of trying to trade for Bulger at this early of a stage (and by early I mean early from the STL side of things, early in that Brodie's still out, early in that its only week 4, and early in that it would be a major QB in the middle of a season...maybe we try at the end of the year?).

2. What would it take for LJ to earn the ability to voice some discontent and not get called out w/ references to diapers, his poor performance of late, etc.?  In my personal opinion, he needs to have LJ-of-old games for at least 5 of 6 games in a row, make multiple statements in support of whichever teammates (rookies and veterans) play well during that time, and only then (so, we're talking week 10), MAYBE could he get away with some complaining if he presents it as "the team is dealing w/ X problem" and does not say the running-back version of "I can't throw the ball AND catch it".

3. In the article, Jackson references the players playing for their jobs and how that's not necessarily a good thing because that's when people make mistakes.  Herm has mentioned before that he likes players to feel queasy about their jobs, and that competition (except, apparently, at RT) is always good for the team because it pushes the starter.  I tend to agree w/ Herm, but I played all of 1 year of high-school football.  Anyone have any experience to the contrary about that feeling of job/starting-spot security?

Did my best to be creative w/ the LJ poll...

With the drafting of Kevin Robinson and Jamaal Charles - both of which are being mentioned as return men - what happens to BJ Sams if the Chiefs go w/ a rookie returning kicks and punts?  I don't know anything about Sams other than some highlights I remember of him returning kicks.  What else does he bring to the table, and where else could he contribute?

Do you think that all the talk about rookies returning kicks/punts has been done w/out thinking about Sams?  It's possible that Sams has the return spot all but locked up, and the rookies will be asked to focus exclusively on their non-special-teams position?  I know competition is king, and that Sams isn't going to be gifted the returner role, but does everyone think he's been forgotten in all the draft hubbub, or that he actually might find himself out of a job if a rookie beats him out for the returner role(s)?

I know we had a link to Gunther's "sledgehammer" comment, but this is the first I've seen of an actual quantifier concerning how many starters are going to be new.  Apparently Herm said we're looking at about 8 new starters.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/story/501655.html

What do you guys think?  3 or 4 on the o-line, 1 or 2 CB, 1 TE (if you call the 2nd TE a "starter", i guess probably not), 1 WR, and 1 FB.  If it is 4 on the line AND 2 CB, it looks like we have our 8?  Or maybe if he's calling the 2nd TE one of the starters, my boy Boomer will still be around...

Well, Chris, you've done a pretty good job hiding it so far, but you've really outed yourself now.  All along we thought you were some web guru, holed away in your mom's basement with 6 TVs on at all times so you can watch non-stop ESPN, ESPN2, NFL Network, Metro Sports, and other random news channels in case anyone utters the word "chief".  But no, it turns out you just use this site to discuss all manner of info, relevant and not, and then use it as material to write your columns several days after we've beaten every topic into the ground.  Turns out...

Continue reading this post »

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/story/348355-p2.html

One sentence at the very bottom of an article is all I've got for you guys, but apparently Rudi Niswanger is going to take some playing time from John Welbourn in the upcoming game.  Given that it takes time for an o-line to gel, what's the deal with the change in playing time mid-way through the season?  Not saying that our line has "gelled" into anything close to greatness, but still, rotating a new lineman in for only parts of a game just seems to be asking for trouble.  My question is:

First, thanks for your info and input.  I love nothing more than seeing the chiefs beat up on the raiders, and luckily its happened a lot the last few years, but there is pretty much nothing dumber than trading insults via online messaging.  

Second, can you wax eloquent for a bit about Kiffin?  What's your personal opinion/take, and if its different than the general mood of the bulk of fans, how do they feel?  What kind of coach is he, will he be there for a long time, is he getting the attention of veterans or will most of the roster have to be replaced for the team to buy into his system, etc.  With the Chiefs, they're generally contenders for the post-season so there's always the hope that every year something will push them over the edge.  With the Raiders, who have had some pretty bad teams/records the last couple years, is there much thought that Kiffin will soon bring the team not only back to the playoffs but into contention for a championship?  

That ended up sounding a lot like a watered-down tv interview question, and i didn't mean for it to.  But, for example, i think the general mood in kc is that we're possibly going to make the playoffs but have pretty much no chance of a super bowl appearance for at least another couple years while Herm's youth movement takes hold and really changes the entire team (right now youth has a hold of about 1/3 of the positions).  What's the thinking like in Oakland?