PDA

View Full Version : The Chiefs suck


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Bronco Rob
06-05-2012, 11:28 AM
Chiefs fans don't think our team is the best, or the organization. I think it's funny how a lot of Bronco fans think they're the Steelers and act like they're miles better than the rest of the division.


Name The Last Team In The AFC West To...

• Win the Divison
• Win a playoff game
• Win A Super Bowl




:thumbs:

broncosteven
06-05-2012, 12:04 PM
It's always confused the hell out of me that Kansas City fans would actually go around talking smack about anything related to their football team. I just can't wrap my brain around the thought process behind it.

I mean, surely nobody goes around in real life bragging about the Chiefs, right? What would they have to brag about that's happened in the past three decades? Maybe that's why there are those who seek out opponent message boards to attempt smack talk on: the anonymity of the internet makes it the only place safe to do so.

Two Words:

Steve Bono

Drunken.Broncoholic
06-05-2012, 12:25 PM
Name The Last Team In The AFC West To...

• Win the Divison
• Win a playoff game
• Win A Super Bowl




:thumbs:

Broncos
Broncos
Broncos

Imagine being a 40 year old chiefs fan, and not even seeing them participate in a Super Bowl.

Jetmeck
06-05-2012, 04:04 PM
You're right. As a fellow Chiefs fan posting on a Broncos board, you could give me experience. I bet you're wearing your Montana 19 jersey as you type. :~ohyah!:

Do you really think this kind of crap gets under my skin ?
Kinda slow, huh ? You are on the wrong board and you
literally have nothing to brag about...............

Your clueless bunch will be our punching bag this year............:wave:

Jetmeck
06-05-2012, 04:05 PM
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos

Imagine being a 40 year old chiefs fan, and not even seeing them participate in a Super Bowl.

Exactly......DUD IS bout 25 and don't even remeber the last
playoff win.............

Rolandftw
06-05-2012, 06:46 PM
Chiefs fans don't think our team is the best, or the organization. I think it's funny how a lot of Bronco fans think they're the Steelers and act like they're miles better than the rest of the division.

A lot of Chief fans think they are going to win the division. Most feel they are better then Denver in almost every position but QB. That was their point of contention during Manning's short but agonizing free agent period.

Lot of Broncos fans think they are going to win the division too.

Difference between the two views, is most in the national media are picking/likely will pick the Broncos to win the division, where as few predictions are calling for the Chiefs to win the division. Not sure if that is really a good thing for the Broncos being the experts seem to be wrong as often as they are right.

I'm sure everyone but Raiders fans thinks they can win this division.

broncosteven
06-05-2012, 06:53 PM
The only way KFC wins the division is if Manning has a setback and Denver has to start a rookie QB.

KFC has some nice pieces but no one who is near the best in the league at any position other than punter.

KCStud
06-05-2012, 07:40 PM
A lot of Chief fans think they are going to win the division. Most feel they are better then Denver in almost every position but QB. That was their point of contention during Manning's short but agonizing free agent period.

Lot of Broncos fans think they are going to win the division too.

Difference between the two views, is most in the national media are picking/likely will pick the Broncos to win the division, where as few predictions are calling for the Chiefs to win the division. Not sure if that is really a good thing for the Broncos being the experts seem to be wrong as often as they are right.

I'm sure everyone but Raiders fans thinks they can win this division.

OK, take out the QB position for just a second...now compare the other 21 starters (+ST's) and look at the depth at each position.
If you don't think KC is stronger at most of the positions than I don't know what to tell ya.

Manning has struggled against the Chargers and Romeo Crennel's defense. Add in the fact that Denver couldn't stop the run last year (in a year without DMC and Charles) and did virtually nothing to improve that and you see why either of the 3 teams could win.

Tombstone RJ
06-05-2012, 08:22 PM
OK, take out the QB position for just a second...now compare the other 21 starters (+ST's) and look at the depth at each position.
If you don't think KC is stronger at most of the positions than I don't know what to tell ya.

Manning has struggled against the Chargers and Romeo Crennel's defense. Add in the fact that Denver couldn't stop the run last year (in a year without DMC and Charles) and did virtually nothing to improve that and you see why either of the 3 teams could win.

One area kc improved was the oline. I've told people here for a while now that the thing that is excellent about kc, especially on defense, is the speed. Sure, kc has talent but if the players don't have any faith in their QB, they may not play all out on every play. I think the players like Crennell, but now the players have a full off season with Crennell and will have an entire regular season with Crennell. We shall see if the honeymoon ends quickly, especially if kc strings a few losses together.

Jetmeck
06-05-2012, 08:40 PM
OK, take out the QB position for just a second...now compare the other 21 starters (+ST's) and look at the depth at each position.
If you don't think KC is stronger at most of the positions than I don't know what to tell ya.

Manning has struggled against the Chargers and Romeo Crennel's defense. Add in the fact that Denver couldn't stop the run last year (in a year without DMC and Charles) and did virtually nothing to improve that and you see why either of the 3 teams could win.

Blind ass homer...............

JC is a scatback and had one good year against a last place schedule and now he is rehabbing a blown out knee.

McGahee is a better all around back.

Your o-line is no better than ours which led the leaque in rushing.

D-line even with our DT position is ours.......

Corners we are better..........

Give ya safety...........

WR is about equal depending upon Bowe and DT...........


So where is it you think you are so much better ?

We have just as good TEs now.............

Rolandftw
06-05-2012, 09:20 PM
OK, take out the QB position for just a second...now compare the other 21 starters (+ST's) and look at the depth at each position.
If you don't think KC is stronger at most of the positions than I don't know what to tell ya.

Manning has struggled against the Chargers and Romeo Crennel's defense. Add in the fact that Denver couldn't stop the run last year (in a year without DMC and Charles) and did virtually nothing to improve that and you see why either of the 3 teams could win.

It's hard to compare some positions because we play different defenses. Can't really compare a 3-4 DE to a 4-3 DE, as they both bring different things to the table.

With that said:

1. O-Line-I think Denver's O-Line is at least as good as KC's, if not better. Good free agent pick ups and draft selections for KC tho. Hard to rate Denver's O-Line under an option style offense last season too.

2. WR-KC returns very average WR's if Bowe holds out. I think both Decker and Thomas will have break out seasons with Manning at QB. KC probably has more depth at the position then Denver.

3. RB-The history of RB's coming back and being nearly as productive in year 1 of an ACL tear... is basically non-existent. Most have had massive drops in production. Many RB's of Charles's similar size and style were never the same again. Maybe Charles will be an exception to that next season, but dunno why Chief fans are counting on it. If he isn't the exception, KC is not in a good place at RB.

4. CB-Flowers is probably the best corner among the teams. But Denver has a lot more depth imo at the position then KC after that.

5. Safety-This is the one position where I don't think it's even remotely debatable--KC is way better here.

6. Front 7-Denver has two very good pass rushers. KC looks to have two as well. Denver had 12 more sacks last season and 14 more tackles for loss. Is KC going to be considerably better next year? Denver considerably worse?

KC has a great 3-4 Middle Linebacker, one of the best in the business and Denver took a big loss in losing Bunkley on defense. DT is a bit of a concern for the Broncos... but based on last year, Denver gave up less yards per carry then KC.

Are the Chiefs going to do better with an unpolished rookie likely starting at NT?

My main point in all of this is that the notion that KC is considerably better at most positions is really not based in reality. They have a good team, and if Bowe signs and Charles is the exception to the rule--KC's offense should be more talented then Denver's (outside of the QB position). But we don't know what will happen there.

KCStud
06-05-2012, 09:43 PM
One area kc improved was the oline. I've told people here for a while now that the thing that is excellent about kc, especially on defense, is the speed. Sure, kc has talent but if the players don't have any faith in their QB, they may not play all out on every play. I think the players like Crennell, but now the players have a full off season with Crennell and will have an entire regular season with Crennell. We shall see if the honeymoon ends quickly, especially if kc strings a few losses together.

The players believe in the QB (or so they say). I strongly believe that our running game will be very good this year because our new OC is very good at formulating the running game. Last year Miami was 11th in rushing with Reggie Bush (who wasn't known as an every down back) and Daniel Thomas. He also was the OC who helped Peyton Hillis bust out in Cleveland in 2010.

But the OL is key. If Cassel has a year like 2010, it will be a good year, but we don't know what we're gonna get with anyone in the division.

Will Manning, Berry, Palmer, Moeaki, DMC, Charles, Rivers, Gates be healthy or perform like they did in the past?

Is Ingram, Poe, or Wolfe a difference maker?

So many questions. I think it's going to be a very close race between all 3 teams.

Bronco Boy
06-05-2012, 09:45 PM
The players believe in the QB (or so they say). I strongly believe that our running game will be very good this year because our new OC is very good at formulating the running game. Last year Miami was 11th in rushing with Reggie Bush (who wasn't known as an every down back) and Daniel Thomas. He also was the OC who helped Peyton Hillis bust out in Cleveland in 2010.

But the OL is key. If Cassel has a year like 2010, it will be a good year, but we don't know what we're gonna get with anyone in the division.

Will Manning, Berry, Palmer, Moeaki, DMC, Charles, Rivers, Gates be healthy or perform like they did in the past?

Is Ingram, Poe, or Wolfe a difference maker?

So many questions. I think it's going to be a very close race between all 3 teams.

No, the Chiefs suck.

KCStud
06-05-2012, 10:01 PM
It's hard to compare some positions because we play different defenses. Can't really compare a 3-4 DE to a 4-3 DE, as they both bring different things to the table.

With that said:

[QUOTE]1. O-Line-I think Denver's O-Line is at least as good as KC's, if not better. Good free agent pick ups and draft selections for KC tho. Hard to rate Denver's O-Line under an option style offense last season too.

I don't think so man. Winston is arguably the best RT in the league. I think most analyst and fans would agree with that. Albert is no slouch either. He had a very good year last year. 24 pressures and 5 sacks given up. Very good for a QB that holds the ball long.
I was not overly impressed with Franklin last year. He was good in run support, but not in pass pro. And Walton struggled most of the time last year. Kuper was very good though.

2. WR-KC returns very average WR's if Bowe holds out. I think both Decker and Thomas will have break out seasons with Manning at QB. KC probably has more depth at the position then Denver.

This is very close, but I think you only have 2 legit WR's. Bowe is a threat. Can you imagine what the guy would do with a franchise QB? Breaston is also a solid contributor. A relibable WR. Baldwin has looked much better so far. He's made some fantastic deep grabs in OTA's (which Cassel is sure as hell gonna need).


3. RB-The history of RB's coming back and being nearly as productive in year 1 of an ACL tear... is basically non-existent. Most have had massive drops in production. Many RB's of Charles's similar size and style were never the same again. Maybe Charles will be an exception to that next season, but dunno why Chief fans are counting on it. If he isn't the exception, KC is not in a good place at RB.

The silver lining of this is that Charles got injured in early September. He's had more than the average time to heal. I think he'll still be a threat because he use's his straight away speed most of the time. Even at 75% he's still above average. I think Hillis is going to flourish in Daboll's system. Daboll was the one calling the run plays when Hillis broke out in Cleveland.
And you're forgeting Cyrus Gray. I think the kid is a solid all around back. Good in the flat and has good speed. Hillman looks like a good pick IMO as far as a weapon in the flat and and sweeps.
I wouldn't take a RB that will be 31 this year over the young guys who have better run blockers.

4. CB-Flowers is probably the best corner among the teams. But Denver has a lot more depth imo at the position then KC after that.

Champ is Champ, but the depth isn't as deep as KC. Jalil Brown (another guy who stood out) is a good contributor, as is Javier Arenas who's been very solid in the slot. Add veterans Travis Daniels and Stanford Routt along with Menzie (who some Bama fans actually thought was as good as Kirkpatrick at times) and I think we have more depth. You guys have the best overall guy, but depth? I'm not so sure.

5. Safety-This is the one position where I don't think it's even remotely debatable--KC is way better here.

Agreed.

6. Front 7-Denver has two very good pass rushers. KC looks to have two as well. Denver had 12 more sacks last season and 14 more tackles for loss. Is KC going to be considerably better next year? Denver considerably worse?

I agree for the most part. It really depends on Poe and Wolfe. Push IMO.

KC has a great 3-4 Middle Linebacker, one of the best in the business and Denver took a big loss in losing Bunkley on defense. DT is a bit of a concern for the Broncos... but based on last year, Denver gave up less yards per carry then KC.

I agree. Losing Bunkley is really going to hurt. He did a very good job for you guys last year. Why not keep him?

Are the Chiefs going to do better with an unpolished rookie likely starting at NT?

My main point in all of this is that the notion that KC is considerably better at most positions is really not based in reality. They have a good team, and if Bowe signs and Charles is the exception to the rule--KC's offense should be more talented then Denver's (outside of the QB position). But we don't know what will happen there.

I don't believe KC is "considerably" better at any position except for Safety.

Too many questions, but I think KC will be a better blocking and run defending team next season.

KCStud
06-05-2012, 10:10 PM
Blind ass homer...............

JC is a scatback and had one good year against a last place schedule and now he is rehabbing a blown out knee.

McGahee is a better all around back.


I like how you left out his 968 yards (3rd in the NFL in 2nd half), 7TD, and 5.86 YPC in his 2009 season in the 8 games he started when he took over for Larry Johnson.

Jetmeck
06-06-2012, 11:52 AM
I like how you left out his 968 yards (3rd in the NFL in 2nd half), 7TD, and 5.86 YPC in his 2009 season in the 8 games he started when he took over for Larry Johnson.

still nothing but an INJURED LITTLE ASS SCATBACK...................who hasn't proved anything to date .............

When he has faced top notch competition ass in the playoffs for example he flat ass disappeared. Best hope he comes back right...TD never was right.

Shananahan
06-06-2012, 12:32 PM
Yeah, all the Chief's players suck and all of Denver's are really good.

Lock thread.

KCStud
06-07-2012, 12:24 AM
still nothing but an INJURED LITTLE ASS SCATBACK...................who hasn't proved anything to date .............

When he has faced top notch competition ass in the playoffs for example he flat ass disappeared. Best hope he comes back right...TD never was right.

Oh Jetmeck. You're hatred for JC is so funny, even though the players of the league voted him as a top 100 player.

And medicine has come a LONG way since TD's days.
Ryan Broyles and Adrian Peterson look very good and they tore their ACL's 2-3 months after JC tore his. Wes Welker looked fine after he tore his.

Jetmeck
06-07-2012, 11:00 AM
Oh Jetmeck. You're hatred for JC is so funny, even though the players of the league voted him as a top 100 player.

And medicine has come a LONG way since TD's days.
Ryan Broyles and Adrian Peterson look very good and they tore their ACL's 2-3 months after JC tore his. Wes Welker looked fine after he tore his.

Your better off with consistent production with hillis instead his disappearing acts just like chris johnson..............he ain't ****

KCStud
06-07-2012, 12:29 PM
Your better off with consistent production with hillis instead his disappearing acts just like chris johnson..............he ain't ****

You're hatred for JC is comical.

bronco militia
06-07-2012, 12:38 PM
Your better off with consistent production with hillis

LOL what?

g6matty
06-07-2012, 12:47 PM
It's hard to compare some positions because we play different defenses. Can't really compare a 3-4 DE to a 4-3 DE, as they both bring different things to the table.

With that said:

1. O-Line-I think Denver's O-Line is at least as good as KC's, if not better. Good free agent pick ups and draft selections for KC tho. Hard to rate Denver's O-Line under an option style offense last season too.

2. WR-KC returns very average WR's if Bowe holds out. I think both Decker and Thomas will have break out seasons with Manning at QB. KC probably has more depth at the position then Denver.

3. RB-The history of RB's coming back and being nearly as productive in year 1 of an ACL tear... is basically non-existent. Most have had massive drops in production. Many RB's of Charles's similar size and style were never the same again. Maybe Charles will be an exception to that next season, but dunno why Chief fans are counting on it. If he isn't the exception, KC is not in a good place at RB.

4. CB-Flowers is probably the best corner among the teams. But Denver has a lot more depth imo at the position then KC after that.

5. Safety-This is the one position where I don't think it's even remotely debatable--KC is way better here.

6. Front 7-Denver has two very good pass rushers. KC looks to have two as well. Denver had 12 more sacks last season and 14 more tackles for loss. Is KC going to be considerably better next year? Denver considerably worse?

KC has a great 3-4 Middle Linebacker, one of the best in the business and Denver took a big loss in losing Bunkley on defense. DT is a bit of a concern for the Broncos... but based on last year, Denver gave up less yards per carry then KC.

Are the Chiefs going to do better with an unpolished rookie likely starting at NT?

My main point in all of this is that the notion that KC is considerably better at most positions is really not based in reality. They have a good team, and if Bowe signs and Charles is the exception to the rule--KC's offense should be more talented then Denver's (outside of the QB position). But we don't know what will happen there.

... man you were making good points until you said flowers was better then champ... i had to stop reading after that

Jetmeck
06-07-2012, 01:48 PM
LOL what?

Don't be a smartass. As a Bronc fans you saw what Hillis was capable of so can the smartass........ Hillis will be a steady gain even if nothing there. JC will never get the hard yards. Scatbacks dance around...get one or couple or get stuffed a lot hoping and praying for
that one big one................

Speed is fine but you need consistency..............just like CJ...JC is not there......................

Jetmeck
06-07-2012, 01:51 PM
You're hatred for JC is comical.

Naw....your just a red/white glasses fool............I call it like I see it.

He is hurt ...as bad as it gets for his position and he is small and cannot get the hard yards.

TD was a tweaner with size and speed and could do it all................you got a scatback.........just look at CJ who
disappears just like your fool has done even when healthy.

bronco militia
06-07-2012, 02:06 PM
Don't be a smartass. As a Bronc fans you saw what Hillis was capable of so can the smartass........ Hillis will be a steady gain even if nothing there. JC will never get the hard yards. Scatbacks dance around...get one or couple or get stuffed a lot hoping and praying for
that one big one................

Speed is fine but you need consistency..............just like CJ...JC is not there......................

hillis has never been consistant from year to year in his entire career. He's a nice role player in any offense, but he will never be "the guy".

Jetmeck
06-07-2012, 02:11 PM
hillis has never been consistant from year to year in his entire career. He's a nice role player in any offense, but he will never be "the guy".

he was consistent for us.he was a freakin bulldozer at times with great hands. Cleveland is another story...when healthy he had some great games for them.

he is a damn site more consistent than the home run hitter swinging and missing/dancing around looking for that one big hit.

I'll take the single or double or 2nd and 5 everytime................

bronco militia
06-07-2012, 02:16 PM
he was consistent for us.he was a freakin bulldozer at times with great hands. Cleveland is another story...when healthy he had some great games for them.

he is a damn site more consistent than the home run hitter swinging and missing/dancing around looking for that one big hit.

I'll take the single or double or 2nd and 5 everytime................

I think he fits in well with the rest of the inconsistant RB's on the chiefs roster.

Jetmeck
06-07-2012, 02:18 PM
I think he fits in well with the rest of the inconsistant RB's on the chiefs roster.

That describes JC.....Hillis will be more consistent for them.

JC like LJ will be gone after having a couple of good years............

KCStud
06-07-2012, 03:44 PM
Naw....your just a red/white glasses fool............I call it like I see it.

Your eyesight is impaired.

He is hurt ...as bad as it gets for his position and he is small and cannot get the hard yards.

Again, medicine has come a long way in the last 10 years, especially for ACL tears. Ryan Broyles and AD are doing just fine and they got injured in November/December. Charles was already 2 months into rehab at that point. It usually takes roughly 9 months to come back from the injury. Charles has an entire year.

TD was a tweaner with size and speed and could do it all................you got a scatback.........just look at CJ who
disappears just like your fool has done even when healthy.

The Chiefs have no intentions of using Charles for the tough short yards. That's why they signed Thomas Jones, then Peyton Hillis.

The Titans are stupid. Giving CJ 358 carries was plain stupid. It was even more stupid to give him 300+ carries the next season to ruin his legs ala Larry Johnson and Curtis Martin. The Chiefs are being smart by not giving Charles 300 carries. That's what shortens a RB's career.

Charles is one of the most explosive RB's in the league and you saying he disappeared is funny. When did he disappear?
He's been an elite playmaker ever since he's started.

Drunken.Broncoholic
06-07-2012, 04:01 PM
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CF4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fm.nfl.com%2Fnews%2F09000d5d826d09 2c%2F&ei=NTLRT7nGM8PC2QWE4-G9Dw&usg=AFQjCNE6GT8bpdPlxRaNdPIR3W8o0wOAWw


Actually you are wrong KCstud. I would only compare running backs with acl injuries. Not a WR like broyles.

Tombstone RJ
06-07-2012, 04:05 PM
I think people need to stick to the point here: the chiefs suck.

Jetmeck
06-07-2012, 04:25 PM
THE ONLY PLACE JC IS ELITE IS IN YOUR HEAD............
he is injured and SMALL.

SPEED AND CUTBACKS ON A BUM KNEE...good luck .

KCStud
06-07-2012, 04:25 PM
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CF4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fm.nfl.com%2Fnews%2F09000d5d826d09 2c%2F&ei=NTLRT7nGM8PC2QWE4-G9Dw&usg=AFQjCNE6GT8bpdPlxRaNdPIR3W8o0wOAWw


Actually you are wrong KCstud. I would only compare running backs with acl injuries. Not a WR like broyles.

Diagnosis: Lewis is a unique case, because he suffered his right ACL tear before the start of the 2001 season and missed the entire year. The fact that he was injured so early was a huge advantage for the bruising back, who also tore up his left knee in 1998 as a collegiate player with the Tennessee Volunteers. With youth on his side and a full season off the gridiron, Lewis made a successful return in 2002 with 1,327 yards on the ground and seven total touchdowns. Those weren't huge numbers, however, and again Lewis was a special example in this research.

Same situation as Charles.

Jamal Lewis, Edge James, Willis McGahee all came back just fine.

Ronnie Brown and Kevin Smith were never as good as JC or any of the 3 listed above. They weren't very good before they got injured.

To say Charles career is going down the tube is wrong. The guy is 23 years old. Not 36.

Jetmeck
06-07-2012, 04:27 PM
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CF4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fm.nfl.com%2Fnews%2F09000d5d826d09 2c%2F&ei=NTLRT7nGM8PC2QWE4-G9Dw&usg=AFQjCNE6GT8bpdPlxRaNdPIR3W8o0wOAWw


Actually you are wrong KCstud. I would only compare running backs with acl injuries. Not a WR like broyles.


Read up DUD..............

KCStud
06-07-2012, 04:27 PM
THE ONLY PLACE JC IS ELITE IS IN YOUR HEAD............
he is injured and SMALL.

SPEED AND CUTBACKS ON A BUM KNEE...good luck .

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/izC4yr-DrVw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"6.4 is the 2nd best YPC a RB has had in a season."

Jetmeck
06-07-2012, 04:30 PM
Diagnosis: Lewis is a unique case, because he suffered his right ACL tear before the start of the 2001 season and missed the entire year. The fact that he was injured so early was a huge advantage for the bruising back, who also tore up his left knee in 1998 as a collegiate player with the Tennessee Volunteers. With youth on his side and a full season off the gridiron, Lewis made a successful return in 2002 with 1,327 yards on the ground and seven total touchdowns. Those weren't huge numbers, however, and again Lewis was a special example in this research.

Same situation as Charles.

Jamal Lewis, Edge James, Willis McGahee all came back just fine.

Ronnie Brown and Kevin Smith were never as good as JC or any of the 3 listed above. They weren't very good before they got injured.

To say Charles career is going down the tube is wrong. The guy is 23 years old. Not 36.


A scatback making his living off speed and cutting ability............

You believe whatever you want since you keep believeing in a pathetic organization but the odds are not in his favor to return to anywhere close to where he was and HE NEVER EVER WAS AN ELITE BACK............

Jetmeck
06-07-2012, 04:31 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/izC4yr-DrVw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"6.4 is the 2nd best YPC a RB has had in a season."

How many TDs and wins did that create ?

Stats are for losers so you and the Chiefs should love this clip
that proves nothing..................

Jetmeck
06-07-2012, 04:33 PM
NOTHING has changed for over 4 decades............losing fans, players , coaching and ownership equals just what you got..............NOTHING !!!!!

KCStud
06-07-2012, 04:35 PM
A scatback making his living off speed and cutting ability............

You believe whatever you want since you keep believeing in a pathetic organization but the odds are not in his favor to return to anywhere close to where he was and HE NEVER EVER WAS AN ELITE BACK............

Yes Charles is gonna be done for his career and Manning is gonna be the same old guy with no problems with his neck?

That's what you're gonna cry next right?Hilarious!

Drunken.Broncoholic
06-07-2012, 04:35 PM
Did you just compare Lewis with Charles?? Their body frames are different as their skill set. Fact is most RBs lose results the following year. That's part of why moreno just got replaced.

Jetmeck
06-07-2012, 04:37 PM
Yes Charles is gonna be done for his career and Manning is gonna be the same old guy with no problems with his neck?

That's what you're gonna cry next right?Hilarious!

mANNING AND cHARLES ARE IN THE SAME BOAT..........

EXCEPT HE WILL HARDLY GET HIT OR RUN WITH THE BALL.........

COME ON TRY HARDER..............

yOU READ THE ARTICLE BUT DON'T SEEM TO COMPREHEND...........

Most on that list DID NOT come back to like they were......that is the point............gawd damn hard headed Chef fan...............

Drunken.Broncoholic
06-07-2012, 04:39 PM
Adrian Peterson won't be the same this year and he's lights out better than Charles.

KCStud
06-07-2012, 04:48 PM
Did you just compare Lewis with Charles?? Their body frames are different as their skill set. Fact is most RBs lose results the following year. That's part of why moreno just got replaced.

Just compared that they both got hurt early and that having an entire year to recover is a big advantage.

Charles isn't a bruising back, which is good because he won't have to deal with the brunt of inside hits. He's more of a straightforward runner that will doesn't do a ton of jukes.

Read this. It's really good insight about how treatment has developed.
http://www.sportsmed-forum.com/index-1/st_pag_patients-home/sm_pag_knee-5/sm_pag_acl-5.htm

Treatment Options: Treatment of ACL injuries has come a long way in the past ten years. Today athletes have greater than a 90% chance of returning to their pre-injury level of sports participation.

KCStud
06-07-2012, 04:55 PM
Adrian Peterson won't be the same this year and he's lights out better than Charles.

Apples and oranges. AD got injured on X-mas eve. Charles got injured in mid September. That's a 3 month difference. Charles knee was already recovered from his surgery (swelling mainly) and he was already into the first stage of physical therapy when AD got hurt.

AD is also way more relied on in Minnesota. He's needed for speed and power. Charles shares carries and is used more for sweeps and off-tackle runs.


I'm not saying Charles is going to get 2K and 25 TD's this year. I don't think he'll end up like TD though. I think he'll return to his old self in time, whether that's next year or the year after or the year after.

Shananahan
06-07-2012, 05:06 PM
Forget about Charles.

How much do you really think Bowe is worth?

KCStud
06-07-2012, 05:38 PM
Forget about Charles.

How much do you really think Bowe is worth?

Not Megatron money, but he deserves his. If Bowe had a franchise QB he'd be getting at least 12 TD's a year.

He's waiting for Welker's deal. I assume it will be somewhat close to that.

Shananahan
06-07-2012, 06:25 PM
I think I'd be pretty upset if my team signed that guy to anywhere near top-ten money. That's completely unbiased as well (I think). He shows flashes, but he disappears or drops his way out of games too often for a guy who would want that kind of money. I'd have to see him do it consistently before I even thought about it. I don't really buy the franchise QB argument, either. Lloyd was hardly playing with a franchise QB and put up ridiculous numbers as the team's only real receiving threat.

Bowe made a name for himself and went to the Pro Bowl off of a 4-6 week stretch of games in which he caught about half of his TDs for the year. I think he's talented, but overrated. I'd be delighted to see KC pay him $9+ million/year with a big signing bonus.

KCStud
06-07-2012, 07:13 PM
I think I'd be pretty upset if my team signed that guy to anywhere near top-ten money. That's completely unbiased as well (I think). He shows flashes, but he disappears or drops his way out of games too often for a guy who would want that kind of money. I'd have to see him do it consistently before I even thought about it. I don't really buy the franchise QB argument, either. Lloyd was hardly playing with a franchise QB and put up ridiculous numbers as the team's only real receiving threat.

Bowe made a name for himself and went to the Pro Bowl off of a 4-6 week stretch of games in which he caught about half of his TDs for the year. I think he's talented, but overrated. I'd be delighted to see KC pay him $9+ million/year with a big signing bonus.

Well look at what he's done in the NFL since he's been here.

He's had 1,000 yards receiving every year (995 yards rookie year but still basically 1,000) except 2009 when Todd Haley benched him and Derrick Johnson because he was trying to make them better.

Look who he's had throwing him the ball? Damon Huard, Brodie Croyle, Tyler Palko? I mean at least he's had success with Cassel.

Bowe looked pretty good with Orton in the 2 1/2 games he was with him. 80 yards and a TD vs Oakland and 93 yards on Champ Bailey in the first half he played (3 20+ yard catches). Not too bad.

I think if you have someone good throwing him the ball, then he's good for a 1,200 yards and 12 TD type of year.

Bronco Rob
06-12-2012, 08:00 AM
No Dwayne Bowe progress in K.C


Kansas City general manger Scott Pioli offered no update on the situation with receiver Dwayne Bowe. He is not expected to attend the team’s mandatory minicamp. He's not technically under contract because he hasn’t signed his franchise tag.

Again, this is just a procedural situation that will eventually play itself out. Bowe is not going to bypass $9-plus million this year (his franchise tag number) if he is not given long-term deal before he signs his tender.




http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/44863/no-dwayne-bowe-progress-in-k-c

Jetmeck
06-12-2012, 02:26 PM
Well look at what he's done in the NFL since he's been here.

He's had 1,000 yards receiving every year (995 yards rookie year but still basically 1,000) except 2009 when Todd Haley benched him and Derrick Johnson because he was trying to make them better.

Look who he's had throwing him the ball? Damon Huard, Brodie Croyle, Tyler Palko? I mean at least he's had success with Cassel.

Bowe looked pretty good with Orton in the 2 1/2 games he was with him. 80 yards and a TD vs Oakland and 93 yards on Champ Bailey in the first half he played (3 20+ yard catches). Not too bad.

I think if you have someone good throwing him the ball, then he's good for a 1,200 yards and 12 TD type of year.

So now you are saying Croyle is a chump............not what you said couple years ago.

Thats my beef with you crazy on the wrong board losers.......least be consistent with your stupidity............

KCStud
06-12-2012, 03:10 PM
So now you are saying Croyle is a chump............not what you said couple years ago.

Thats my beef with you crazy on the wrong board losers.......least be consistent with your stupidity............

Legitimate proof that you use two usernames.

What up Bronco Rob?

Jetmeck
06-12-2012, 04:56 PM
Legitimate proof that you use two usernames.

What up Bronco Rob?

You figure ? huh...really

ACtually its proof that your football knowledge is lacking ...................

Kaylore
06-12-2012, 05:11 PM
Legitimate proof that you use two usernames.

What up Bronco Rob?

Jetmeck's been here forever.

Rabb
06-12-2012, 05:15 PM
You and DBM are just day one retarded, nice work KC

Kaylore
06-12-2012, 05:18 PM
I think people need to stick to the point here: the chiefs suck.

Thank you! :thanku:

brncs_fan
06-12-2012, 08:44 PM
Chuck the Fiefs.

That is all.

Bronco Rob
06-12-2012, 09:14 PM
Legitimate proof that you use two usernames.

What up Bronco Rob?



Bronco Rob
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,653





<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/scILa5iPBcg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>






:pimp:

KCStud
06-12-2012, 11:56 PM
Jetmeck's been here forever.

But yet they never post in the same time frame.

EastOrange
06-13-2012, 02:12 PM
Wow. The buffoon (to quote Woody) at WalterFootball has the Chiefs winning the division and us only going 8-8 (http://walterfootball.com/offseason2012den.php). The Chiefs are still going to be terrible; how moronic.

KCStud
06-13-2012, 02:42 PM
Wow. The buffoon (to quote Woody) at WalterFootball has the Chiefs winning the division and us only going 8-8 (http://walterfootball.com/offseason2012den.php). The Chiefs are still going to be terrible; how moronic.

People think KC can be a good team this year. It's not just walterfootball.

Bronco Rob
06-13-2012, 10:57 PM
People think KC can be a good team this year. It's not just walterfootball.




The only thing the chefs have going for them in 2012 is a last place schedule.

KCStud
06-13-2012, 11:33 PM
The only thing the chefs have going for them in 2012 is a last place schedule.

Which the previous 2 division winners used to win the division.

Shananahan
06-14-2012, 12:34 AM
Hey, we used luck and magic.

The schedule had nothing to do with it.

KCStud
06-14-2012, 07:26 PM
Hey, we used luck and magic.

The schedule had nothing to do with it.

Yep. I'm sure beating all the teams with losing records and getting beat by the good teams (Detroit and New England) had nothing to do with it.:thumbs:

Tombstone RJ
06-14-2012, 07:33 PM
Yep. I'm sure beating all the teams with losing records and getting beat by the good teams (Detroit and New England) had nothing to do with it.:thumbs:

lol, the Broncos played one of the tougher schedules last year.

DENVERDUI55
06-14-2012, 07:43 PM
Yep. I'm sure beating all the teams with losing records and getting beat by the good teams (Detroit and New England) had nothing to do with it.:thumbs:

You keep saying that even though KC played same schedule except they got gift wrapped W with Indy and Pitt. Denver got playoff team Cinncinatti and Tennessee. That argument you keep making is plain dumb.

KCStud
06-14-2012, 08:33 PM
You keep saying that even though KC played same schedule except they got gift wrapped W with Indy and Pitt. Denver got playoff team Cinncinatti and Tennessee. That argument you keep making is plain dumb.


7 of your 8 wins came against teams without winning records records and you were 1-5 against winning teams.

You took advantage of weaker opponents and got beat by good ones.

DENVERDUI55
06-14-2012, 09:00 PM
7 of your 8 wins came against teams without winning records records and you were 1-5 against winning teams.

You took advantage of weaker opponents and got beat by good ones.

I agree that Denver was not a great team. We rode luck and breaks. I like the cherry picking where you don't count the 8-8 teams that we beat. That is one reason that they don't have a winning record.

Now that you tried sidetracking the subject what do those teams have to do with 1st place schedule card you use all the time? The rest of the AFCW played the same teams minus 2? Don't you know how they do the schedule?

KCStud
06-14-2012, 09:07 PM
I agree that Denver was not a great team. We rode luck and breaks. I like the cherry picking where you don't count the 8-8 teams that we beat. That is one reason that they don't have a winning record.

Now that you tried sidetracking the subject what do those teams have to do with 1st place schedule card you use all the time? The rest of the AFCW played the same teams minus 2? Don't you know how they do the schedule?

8-8 isn't a winning season.

The point is that you had your chance to beat good teams, but didn't beat them. This year you have Houston and New England while we have Indy and Buffalo.

That's a huge difference.

DENVERDUI55
06-14-2012, 09:12 PM
8-8 isn't a winning season.

The point is that you had your chance to beat good teams, but didn't beat them. This year you have Houston and New England while we have Indy and Buffalo.

That's a huge difference.

So you can predict injuries? On paper right now you are right. You chalked up Indy a loss last year when it came out on schedule. Any team loses starting QB and season is toast pretty much. They play the games for a reason.

Tim
06-14-2012, 09:18 PM
8-8 isn't a winning season.

The point is that you had your chance to beat good teams, but didn't beat them. This year you have Houston and New England while we have Indy and Buffalo.

That's a huge difference.

I watched the chiefs play both those teams last year and I wouldn't pencil those in as wins. They beat the Curtis Painter colts but.. barely :rofl:

KCStud
06-14-2012, 09:25 PM
So you can predict injuries? On paper right now you are right. You chalked up Indy a loss last year when it came out on schedule. Any team loses starting QB and season is toast pretty much. They play the games for a reason.

Yep. KC's season was destroyed by injuries last year and they still came from a blocked FG from winning the division.

KCStud
06-14-2012, 09:27 PM
I watched the chiefs play both those teams last year and I wouldn't pencil those in as wins. They beat the Curtis Painter colts but.. barely :rofl:

And you guys barely beat the Vikings and barely beat the Dolphins in OT. See what I just did there?

DENVERDUI55
06-15-2012, 07:25 AM
Yep. KC's season was destroyed by injuries last year and they still came from a blocked FG from winning the division.

Or a fumbled snap from another loss. Isn't this fun we can do this all day.

Bronco Rob
07-02-2012, 06:22 PM
Dwayne Bowe invited to Miami by Davis, Ochocino


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82a46aa3/article/dwayne-bowe-invited-to-miami-by-davis-ochocino


.

Tombstone RJ
07-02-2012, 06:25 PM
Bowe wants out of kc... I bet he'd take less money to play in Miami if it got him away from kc...

Broncobiv
07-02-2012, 06:48 PM
Bowe wants out of kc... I bet he'd take less money to play in Miami if it got him away from kc...

It's not his choice though, is it? Doesn't KC hold all the power?

CEH
07-02-2012, 06:53 PM
8-8 isn't a winning season.

The point is that you had your chance to beat good teams, but didn't beat them. This year you have Houston and New England while we have Indy and Buffalo.

That's a huge difference.

What do you call Pittsburgh? Last time I checked they are pretty good and we beat them in the playoffs. Last time you were in the playoffs vs the AFCN wildcard team at home you lost 30-7 with not a first down until the 3rd qtr

That's a huge huge difference.

Bronco Rob
07-02-2012, 07:02 PM
What does Bowe-Miami twitter talk mean?


http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/45523/what-does-bowe-miami-twitter-talk-mean

broncosteven
07-02-2012, 07:04 PM
What does Bowe-Miami twitter talk mean?


http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/45523/what-does-bowe-miami-twitter-talk-mean

KFC actually franchised Bowe?

LOL

KCStud
07-02-2012, 08:11 PM
Wow you guys are stupid if you don't see what's happening here. Hilarious!

It's 2 weeks until Bowe is supposed to get his pay day. He's at a camp in his hometown with 2 guys who are repping him on twitter. You figure it out.

Los Broncos
07-02-2012, 09:14 PM
KC gives the best BJ's.

Bob's your Information Minister
07-02-2012, 10:14 PM
http://uranus.ckt.net/~gochiefs/Animation2.gif

Bob's your Information Minister
07-02-2012, 10:15 PM
The only thing the chefs have going for them in 2012 is a last place schedule.

Actually our schedule is pretty hard.

I don't expect us to challenge for the division.

KCStud
07-03-2012, 10:11 AM
Actually our schedule is pretty hard.

I don't expect us to challenge for the division.

Denver has by far the hardest schedule.

6 of their first 8 games are against playoff teams and a MNF game at SD.
Their 2nd half includes games at Cincy and Carolina (two very good up and coming teams) compared to KC playing both of them at home. Then they have away games at Arrowhead and Baltimore.

Denver feasted on bad teams to get to the playoffs last year. Now they play several elite teams this year. We'll see if the forehead alone is enough to do well.

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-03-2012, 10:33 AM
Denver has by far the hardest schedule.

6 of their first 8 games are against playoff teams and a MNF game at SD.
Their 2nd half includes games at Cincy and Carolina (two very good up and coming teams) compared to KC playing both of them at home. Then they have away games at Arrowhead and Baltimore.

Denver feasted on bad teams to get to the playoffs last year. Now they play several elite teams this year. We'll see if the forehead alone is enough to do well.

Feasted on bad teams? Going into last year people said the stretch in the middle of the season was one of the hardest in the league. Was not a cake walk schedule with the divisions they played. Look to patriots and niners taking advantage of easy schedules. Patriots yet again with the easiest schedule this year too.

Rabb
07-03-2012, 10:57 AM
I love the scheduling excuse for last year, for ****'s sake we can only play who we are scheduled to play.

maher_tyler
07-03-2012, 11:03 AM
Denver has by far the hardest schedule.

6 of their first 8 games are against playoff teams and a MNF game at SD.
Their 2nd half includes games at Cincy and Carolina (two very good up and coming teams) compared to KC playing both of them at home. Then they have away games at Arrowhead and Baltimore.

Denver feasted on bad teams to get to the playoffs last year. Now they play several elite teams this year. We'll see if the forehead alone is enough to do well.

If you can't beat good teams in the regular season, what makes you think you can beat good teams in the playoffs?? I'd rather have a hard schedule than an easy one...no point making the playoffs if your just going to lose as soon as you get there because you played weak teams all year long...

CEH
07-03-2012, 01:29 PM
Denver has by far the hardest schedule.

6 of their first 8 games are against playoff teams and a MNF game at SD.
Their 2nd half includes games at Cincy and Carolina (two very good up and coming teams) compared to KC playing both of them at home. Then they have away games at Arrowhead and Baltimore.

Denver feasted on bad teams to get to the playoffs last year. Now they play several elite teams this year. We'll see if the forehead alone is enough to do well.

Nice plagerism. This is what we said about KC in 2010 and we were proved right. You try to use the same argument on us only we beat the AFCN wildcard team at home to win a playoff game. Denver has already proven it can be a good team when it counts and now we added a HOF QB who according to Kils was alot better and stronger the last day of minicamp then he was the first day of TAs. Incredible physical improvement. Said hee ran the two minute drill like the defense was not even there hitting crossing patterns , deep sideline passes bascally shredding the defense

Try again this time maybe use your own thoughts/ideas

broncosteven
07-03-2012, 02:43 PM
Denver has by far the hardest schedule.

6 of their first 8 games are against playoff teams and a MNF game at SD.
Their 2nd half includes games at Cincy and Carolina (two very good up and coming teams) compared to KC playing both of them at home. Then they have away games at Arrowhead and Baltimore.

Denver feasted on bad teams to get to the playoffs last year. Now they play several elite teams this year. We'll see if the forehead alone is enough to do well.

Nothink like watching Denver feast on KFC enroute to the playoffs and then doing something KFC hasn't done since before Steve Bono, i.e. win a playoff game!

KFC Sucks!

KCStud
07-03-2012, 04:06 PM
Feasted on bad teams? Going into last year people said the stretch in the middle of the season was one of the hardest in the league. Was not a cake walk schedule with the divisions they played. Look to patriots and niners taking advantage of easy schedules. Patriots yet again with the easiest schedule this year too.

It's a fact. You beat ONE winning team last year and the rest were against losing teams (or 8-8 that underachieved). And yes the Niners are in that category too. Patriots have done this for years. We know they're for real.

What do you mean it wasn't a cake walk schedule? The Vikings, Dolphins (especially at the time you played them), Raiders starting a QB that just got the playbook and hasn't played in months, Bears without Cutler and Forte.
Seriously?

You beat bad teams to get into the playoffs, then face a crippled Steelers team and barely beat them.

How we forget that the Broncos were 4-12 going into last year and entering the first year of a new coaching staff.

I doubt Manning is going to make you a top 5 offensive unit in week 1. Manning spent years gaining chemistry and rythym with the Colts.

Houshyamama
07-03-2012, 04:29 PM
It's a fact. You beat ONE winning team last year and the rest were against losing teams (or 8-8 that underachieved). And yes the Niners are in that category too. Patriots have done this for years. We know they're for real.

What do you mean it wasn't a cake walk schedule? The Vikings, Dolphins (especially at the time you played them), Raiders starting a QB that just got the playbook and hasn't played in months, Bears without Cutler and Forte.
Seriously?

You beat bad teams to get into the playoffs, then face a crippled Steelers team and barely beat them.

How we forget that the Broncos were 4-12 going into last year and entering the first year of a new coaching staff.

I doubt Manning is going to make you a top 5 offensive unit in week 1. Manning spent years gaining chemistry and rythym with the Colts.

When was the last time the Chiefs won a playoff game, against any opponent whether they be crippled or not?

This thread is about how much the Chiefs suck, let's stay on topic people.

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-03-2012, 04:34 PM
It's a fact. You beat ONE winning team last year and the rest were against losing teams (or 8-8 that underachieved). And yes the Niners are in that category too. Patriots have done this for years. We know they're for real.

What do you mean it wasn't a cake walk schedule? The Vikings, Dolphins (especially at the time you played them), Raiders starting a QB that just got the playbook and hasn't played in months, Bears without Cutler and Forte.
Seriously?

You beat bad teams to get into the playoffs, then face a crippled Steelers team and barely beat them.

How we forget that the Broncos were 4-12 going into last year and entering the first year of a new coaching staff.

I doubt Manning is going to make you a top 5 offensive unit in week 1. Manning spent years gaining chemistry and rythym with the Colts.

You couldve had a somewhat valid post until you threw in the last 2 sentences.
Took him years to gain chemistry? He threw over 4,000 yards his sophomore year! The things you scared folk say to keep yourself in denial is amazing. I not only guarantee this offense will be better than last year(if manning is healthy), I'll slap a 1000 dollar bet on it.

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-03-2012, 04:37 PM
When was the last time the Chiefs won a playoff game, against any opponent whether they be crippled or not?

This thread is about how much the Chiefs suck, let's stay on topic people.

It's amazing that someone can actually be in denial of years and YEARS of failure. Decades gone by without ANY playoff success.

Houshyamama
07-03-2012, 04:41 PM
It's amazing that someone can actually be in denial of years and YEARS of failure. Decades gone by without ANY playoff success.

You have to accept the fact that he is a Chiefs fan, and it all makes sense. I'd hate the Broncos and their success if I was a Quiefs fan.

HorseHead
07-03-2012, 05:02 PM
The Chiefs suck more than Starship's "We Built This City"...

Actually, like the clips of Bowe, I didn't know he had that kind of speed..

KCStud
07-03-2012, 05:31 PM
You have to accept the fact that he is a Chiefs fan, and it all makes sense. I'd hate the Broncos and their success if I was a Quiefs fan.

Chiefs haven't won a SB in 40 some odd years. It took the Broncos 38 until the city could actually say they won a championship.

You like to beat your chest about the Chiefs playoff nightmares in the last 19 years. How about we revisit your first 4 SB's? I guarantee those SB blowouts gave Broncos fans more nightmares than the Chiefs recent upsets.

The Broncos history is all because of one player, and ever since he's left, the team has been below average.

But continue to avoid that and act like the Denver Broncos are the Packers, Steelers, or Giants.

Kaylore
07-03-2012, 05:37 PM
Below average? I would agree with average, but not below average.

KCStud
07-03-2012, 05:48 PM
Below average? I would agree with average, but not below average.

Mediocre seasons, below average playoffs. 2-5 (all 5 were complete ass beatings)

The same thing as the King Carl years in KC.

Kaylore
07-03-2012, 05:48 PM
Just for giggles I ran the winning percentages for the Chiefs and Broncos since 1999

Broncos: .534 Average

Chiefs: .462 - This is below average.

Shananahan
07-03-2012, 05:51 PM
*giggles*

KCStud
07-03-2012, 05:58 PM
Just for giggles I ran the winning percentages for the Chiefs and Broncos since 1999

Broncos: .534 Average

Chiefs: .462 - This is below average.

6 winning seasons in 12 years. 2-5 playoff record including blowing the AFC Championship at home.

But that is way above average compared to the Elway years, right? :~ohyah!:

broncocalijohn
07-03-2012, 06:02 PM
Chiefs haven't won a SB in 40 some odd years. It took the Broncos 38 until the city could actually say they won a championship.

You like to beat your chest about the Chiefs playoff nightmares in the last 19 years. How about we revisit your first 4 SB's? I guarantee those SB blowouts gave Broncos fans more nightmares than the Chiefs recent upsets. The Broncos history is all because of one player, and ever since he's left, the team has been below average.

But continue to avoid that and act like the Denver Broncos are the Packers, Steelers, or Giants.

Oh, NO! BTW, "recent upsets"? 19 years isnt recent moron. We had a stud QB and we have wins in the playoffs that got us in the Super Bowl. You were probably too drunk, young or not born to remember our very first win that came in the hands of the Raiders in 1977. That made the city even more nutso for the Broncos. Can you remember the Browns with The Drive and The Drive 2? How about beating the Oilers in the first round with two fourth down plays in the final drive? I know you can't forget the win we put on Marty again with the away win vs your pathetic Chiefs then to go to Pittsburgh and do the same to them. Well, those last two got us to our first win. We never lost hope and our love for the Broncos even after those blowouts. We were patient and Elway and company got us the SB victory the fanbase was craving.
We have one of the top franchises in the NFL and since 1977, only a few top us. Enjoy suckness Chiefs fans. Your try at changing the subject of "Chiefs suck" is clearly not working.

broncocalijohn
07-03-2012, 06:04 PM
6 winning seasons in 12 years. 2-5 playoff record including blowing the AFC Championship at home.

But that is way above average compared to the Elway years, right? :~ohyah!:

How are those Chiefs wins in the playoffs? Hilarious!

You should stop while you are way behind. You are proving that the retard line can actually be erased and moved back even farther.
Even Faiders fans are waving at you as you slip farther into abyss of moronic periodic table. You past dense loooong time ago.

KCStud
07-03-2012, 06:06 PM
Oh, NO! BTW, "recent upsets"? 19 years isnt recent moron. We had a stud QB and we have wins in the playoffs that got us in the Super Bowl. You were probably too drunk, young or not born to remember our very first win that came in the hands of the Raiders in 1977. That made the city even more nutso for the Broncos. Can you remember the Browns with The Drive and The Drive 2? How about beating the Oilers in the first round with two fourth down plays in the final drive? I know you can't forget the win we put on Marty again with the away win vs your pathetic Chiefs then to go to Pittsburgh and do the same to them. Well, those last two got us to our first win. We never lost hope and our love for the Broncos even after those blowouts. We were patient and Elway and company got us the SB victory the fanbase was craving.
We have one of the top franchises in the NFL and since 1977, only a few top us. Enjoy suckness Chiefs fans. Your try at changing the subject of "Chiefs suck" is clearly not working.

Oh really? The mighty Broncos, one of the best franchises in NFL history, have only ONE more SB trophy than the Chiefs.
You don't even have the most SB wins of any team in the division.

Stuck in Cali
07-03-2012, 06:12 PM
Oh really? The mighty Broncos, one of the best franchises in NFL history, have only ONE more SB trophy than the Chiefs.
You don't even have the most SB wins of any team in the division.

You just don't get it, you suck worse than the team your trying to defend.

broncocalijohn
07-03-2012, 06:15 PM
Oh really? The mighty Broncos, one of the best franchises in NFL history, have only ONE more SB trophy than the Chiefs.
You don't even have the most SB wins of any team in the division.

Since 1977, yes one of the best with 2 SB wins and 6 total times in the SB. Add I believe 2 or 3 trips to the AFC championship game and that is pretty impressive. Do you really want us to put regular season stats and playoff stats since 1977 and compare? Haven't you been embarrassed enough? And to your last question, we only lose out to the Raiders. "Of any team" would include the Chiefs and Broncos. Add Seattle in there too since they were around during the majority of the seasons (and they have been to the SB more recent than your Chiefs!).

Tombstone RJ
07-03-2012, 06:16 PM
It's a fact. You beat ONE winning team last year and the rest were against losing teams (or 8-8 that underachieved). And yes the Niners are in that category too. Patriots have done this for years. We know they're for real.

What do you mean it wasn't a cake walk schedule? The Vikings, Dolphins (especially at the time you played them), Raiders starting a QB that just got the playbook and hasn't played in months, Bears without Cutler and Forte.
Seriously?

You beat bad teams to get into the playoffs, then face a crippled Steelers team and barely beat them.

How we forget that the Broncos were 4-12 going into last year and entering the first year of a new coaching staff.

I doubt Manning is going to make you a top 5 offensive unit in week 1. Manning spent years gaining chemistry and rythym with the Colts.

That's not what I remember. I remember talking about the rather brutal schedule especially in the middle of the season. The Broncos went 8-8 and it wasn't because the Broncos beat the easy teams, it was more because of a team transitioning from one offense to another and the defense being on the field a lot. The Broncos were not a great team last year but there was a lot of stuff going on too. I think Manning will bring some stability.

Shananahan
07-03-2012, 06:30 PM
19 years isnt recent moron.
'Recently' isn't a period of time in Kansas City, it's the precise moment that the last good thing pertaining to their team and the topic at hand occurred.

Language can be a very effective tool when dealing with suffering.

Houshyamama
07-03-2012, 06:53 PM
This isn't working for you KCStud, your arguments aren't even worth rebutting. The Denver Broncos aren't the most decorated team in the league by a long shot, but our history is far more glorious than the Chiefs, and it's not even close.

Kaylore
07-03-2012, 06:55 PM
KC, how old are you?

Houshyamama
07-03-2012, 06:57 PM
KC, how old are you?

He might not respond. His mother just contacted me and relayed that his internet privileges have been revoked for not doing his dishes.

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-03-2012, 07:05 PM
KCstud?

Broncos > Chiefs. Past present and future. Get over it.

BroncoMan4ever
07-03-2012, 07:38 PM
6 winning seasons in 12 years. 2-5 playoff record including blowing the AFC Championship at home.

But that is way above average compared to the Elway years, right? :~ohyah!:

8-14 all time playoff record and no wins since 93 a streak of 7 consecutive losses. in that same time span of 93 until this past season Denver has gone 9-7 with 2 Super Bowl wins.

broncosteven
07-03-2012, 07:56 PM
Chiefs haven't won a SB in 40 some odd years. It took the Broncos 38 until the city could actually say they won a championship.

You like to beat your chest about the Chiefs playoff nightmares in the last 19 years. How about we revisit your first 4 SB's? I guarantee those SB blowouts gave Broncos fans more nightmares than the Chiefs recent upsets.

The Broncos history is all because of one player, and ever since he's left, the team has been below average.

But continue to avoid that and act like the Denver Broncos are the Packers, Steelers, or Giants.

Hmmm here is some trivia for KFCDud:

What is the name of the 1st team to suffer a SB blowout?

Love your "well it took you guys 38 years to win a SB but we are only working on year 42 since our last" smack.

broncosteven
07-03-2012, 07:59 PM
KC, how old are you?

2 years ago he was 15, last year he was 14 and judging by his last couple lame attempts at defending KFC he is now 13.

For reals man!

Bob's your Information Minister
07-03-2012, 08:31 PM
Just for giggles I ran the winning percentages for the Chiefs and Broncos since 1999

Broncos: .534 Average

Chiefs: .462 - This is below average.

That's about one more win per year for the Broncos.

Congrats on being slightly better than our ****ty franchise.

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-03-2012, 09:03 PM
That's about one more win per year for the Broncos.

Congrats on being slightly better than our ****ty franchise.

Admitting the broncos are better is the first step toward sanity.

Bronco Rob
07-03-2012, 09:10 PM
Ron Jaworski Ranks Joe Flacco as 9th Best QB in NFL


That's Flacco's No. 1 attribute," Jaworski said. "I get so tired of hearing how arm strength is overrated. It's far more important than people think. He has the strongest arm in the NFL."

Jaworski added, "The element always overlooked by those who minimize arm strength is the willingness of quarterbacks like Flacco to pull the trigger. Few recognize that because there is no quantifiable means by which to evaluate throws that are not made by quarterbacks with lesser arm strength. It's all about dimensions. Flacco gives you the ability to attack all areas of the field at any point in the game."

"In his four seasons, Flacco has won 69 percent of his regular-season starts," Jaworski said. "How about this? He's started nine playoff games, eight of them on the road, and he's won five of them. Now that's impressive."*

"There are very few quarterbacks in the NFL with the pure throwing ability of Joe Flacco," Jaworski said. "The reason Joe is No. 9 and not higher is his production does not always match his skill set. If he can become more consistent in 2012, he will move up in my quarterback rankings.



*Meanwhile the kansas city chefs have won THREE playoff games in FORTY TWO seasons.




http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa444/Paxil_Rose/987-1.png










:thumbs:

Tombstone RJ
07-03-2012, 09:11 PM
That's about one more win per year for the Broncos.

Congrats on being slightly better than our ****ty franchise.

2 playoff wins is nothing special but it beats 0 playoff wins...

KCStud
07-03-2012, 09:24 PM
The entire AFC West history is ****ty compared to the rest of the league. There's far more failure than good.

This sounds like a true brokeback mt fan. Say the team is an elite franchise and use the comparison to KC's struggles to prove it.

Great franchises aren't one trick ponies like the Broncos. They have more than one QB who defines their greatness.

You've proven to be average at best in the 37 years without horse face.

KCStud
07-03-2012, 09:27 PM
2 playoff wins is nothing special but it beats 0 playoff wins...

We're an elite franchise! We're 2-5 in the playoffs since horse face, but it's better than KC because that's all that matters in brokeback mt!!! Hilarious!

Tombstone RJ
07-03-2012, 09:29 PM
The entire AFC West history is ****ty compared to the rest of the league. There's far more failure than good.

This sounds like a true brokeback mt fan. Say the team is an elite franchise and use the comparison to KC's struggles to prove it.

Great franchises aren't one trick ponies like the Broncos. They have more than one QB who defines their greatness.

You've proven to be average at best in the 37 years without horse face.

translation: I know the chefs suck, but I'd like to think that kc's ineptitude is more about other teams than well, kc.

KCStud
07-03-2012, 09:30 PM
Ron Jaworski Ranks Joe Flacco as 9th Best QB in NFL






*Meanwhile the kansas city chefs have won THREE playoff games in FORTY TWO seasons.




http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa444/Paxil_Rose/987-1.png










:thumbs:

Meanwhile in Jetmeck's/Rob's closet..... http://www.sportswearetc.biz/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/y/o/youth_chiefs_jersey_7.jpg

KCStud
07-03-2012, 09:31 PM
translation: I know the chefs suck, but I'd like to think that kc's ineptitude is more about other teams than well, kc.

Do tell me about the great success your organization has had in the 37 years horse face wasn't on the team?

Tombstone RJ
07-03-2012, 09:41 PM
Do tell me about the great success your organization has had in the 37 years horse face wasn't on the team?

I admit the Broncos were lousy through the 60s and into the 70s, but the fans sold out the games non-the-less. The Broncos have made steady progress up until the SB wins and then things more or less flattened out.

I wonder how Manning feels about the Broncos. I wonder why he chose the Broncos over all the other franchises that wanted him. On the flip side, I know why he wouldn't give kc the time of day. It's funny how kc fans rave about how loaded the team is aside from the QB position yet Manning refused to even visit kc.

KCmud, this is your SB. The offseason is the time that chefs fans all come together and predict how swell their team is and how they are going to win the SB. Congrats on another off season where you win the imaginary SB!

Kaylore
07-03-2012, 09:44 PM
Kc, and I told you my age. How old are you?

maher_tyler
07-03-2012, 09:45 PM
Chiefs suck!

KCStud
07-03-2012, 09:46 PM
I admit the Broncos were lousy through the 60s and into the 70s, but the fans sold out the games non-the-less. The Broncos have made steady progress up until the SB wins and then things more or less flattened out.

I wonder how Manning feels about the Broncos. I wonder why he chose the Broncos over all the other franchises that wanted him. On the flip side, I know why he wouldn't give kc the time of day. It's funny how kc fans rave about how loaded the team is aside from the QB position yet Manning refused to even visit kc.

KCmud, this is your SB. The offseason is the time that chefs fans all come together and predict how swell their team is and how they are going to win the SB. Congrats on another off season where you win the imaginary SB!

Manning chose the Broncos because of Horse Face. It's not that hard to see that.

And the Broncos had some trouble in the mid 60's if I do recall.

Btw the offseason is the Faiders SB time, numbnutz.

Tombstone RJ
07-03-2012, 09:48 PM
Manning chose the Broncos because of Horse Face. It's not that hard to see that.

And the Broncos had some trouble in the mid 60's if I do recall.

Btw the offseason is the Faiders SB time, numbnutz.

the Elway effect, it's still working!! :strong:

KCStud
07-03-2012, 09:48 PM
Kc, and I told you my age. How old are you?

I'll give you a hint. I saw the Chiefs win their last playoff game.

KCStud
07-03-2012, 09:51 PM
the Elway effect, it's still working!! :strong:

Not really. Every pro athlete wants to play for their hero. I bet thousands of players would want to play for Larry Bird a few years ago. Even today kids want to play for Jordan even though his team sucks.

Shananahan
07-03-2012, 09:51 PM
I'll give you a hint. I saw the Chiefs win their last playoff game.
That was pretty recent, though.

KCStud
07-03-2012, 09:54 PM
That was pretty recent, though.

I'm no old man. Then again you're only as old as you feel. :flower:

Tombstone RJ
07-03-2012, 09:54 PM
Not really. Every pro athlete wants to play for their hero. I bet thousands of players would want to play for Larry Bird a few years ago. Even today kids want to play for Jordan even though his team sucks.

so... what is your point? If you are saying that Elway is Manning's hero how is that a bad thing? If you are saying kc has no heros that Manning can look up to then yah, you are right.

Bronco Rob
07-03-2012, 09:55 PM
Do tell me about the great success your organization has had in the 37 years horse face wasn't on the team?



Here are some fun facts:

Going back to 1976, the Denver Broncos have had an equal number of Superbowl appearances as losing seasons (6). Over that same time span, The Kansas City Chiefs has had more losing seasons (18) than playoff appearances (11).

Since the Kansas City Chiefs last playoff win, every single AFC West team other than Kansas City has been to at least one Super Bowl, one of which won it twice.



:thumbs:

KCStud
07-03-2012, 09:59 PM
so... what is your point? If you are saying that Elway is Manning's hero how is that a bad thing? If you are saying kc has no heros that Manning can look up to then yah, you are right.

Len Dawson says hi. He was before Manning's time though.

broncocalijohn
07-03-2012, 10:03 PM
Len Dawson says hi. He was before Manning's time though.

So did Montana go there because of Dawson? Hilarious!
Maybe it was the Dawson effect that brought Steve Bono to the Chiefs. Good God dude, stop. You are just getting deeper and deeper in the ****. We can go back to 1977 when the legacy started. That is 35 years ago! In that time, 6 Super Bowl appearances. KC? NONE!

Tombstone RJ
07-03-2012, 10:04 PM
Len Dawson says hi. He was before Manning's time though.

Hilarious!

he was before Elway's time too.

KCStud
07-03-2012, 10:05 PM
So did Montana go there because of Dawson? Hilarious!
Maybe it was the Dawson effect that brought Steve Bono to the Chiefs. Good God dude, stop. You are just getting deeper and deeper in the ****. We can go back to 1977 when the legacy started. That is 35 years ago! In that time, 6 Super Bowl appearances. KC? NONE!

Bono was brought because of Carl. God dude, stop. Hilarious!

Cool Joe came to KC because he liked our team and franchise, obviously. So there goes your argument.

Tombstone RJ
07-03-2012, 10:08 PM
Bono was brought because of Carl. God dude, stop. Hilarious!

Cool Joe came to KC because he liked our team and franchise, obviously. So there goes your argument.

It's Joe Cool btw... :wave:

KCStud
07-03-2012, 10:08 PM
Hilarious!

he was before Elway's time too.

Oh so that means he doesn't matter. Typical Bronco logic. The 80's were over 20 years ago, maybe those years shouldn't count either because they were so long ago.

Stuck in Cali
07-03-2012, 10:09 PM
Manning chose the Broncos because of Horse Face. It's not that hard to see that.

And the Broncos had some trouble in the mid 60's if I do recall.

Btw the offseason is the Faiders SB time, numbnutz.

Wow, never heard the term horse face before :p is that the best you can come up with? Bet you would give anything to of ever had him play for your loser team.

Bet you wish Manning would of at least taken a look at KC, wait he probably did and in 2 seconds he said hell no.

Fact is that Denver, with everything combined is and has been a superior franchise.

KCStud
07-03-2012, 10:10 PM
It's Joe Cool btw... :wave:

Best QB in NFL history btw :strong:

broncocalijohn
07-03-2012, 10:13 PM
Bono was brought because of Carl. God dude, stop. Hilarious!

Cool Joe came to KC because he liked our team and franchise, obviously. So there goes your argument.

Exactly, so why did you bring up Dawson as if that has any effect on QBs wanting to come to the Chiefs. That was my point. If QBs want to come to Denver because of Elway, that is pretty damn sweet. You have no one that a QB can hang on to to say, "Such and such were great QBs here and if they were franchise QBs for the Chiefs then I want to be a Chief."
Face it dude, there is no good face for the franchise except maybe one that died in a car accident and one that left a few years back for Atlanta. Montana isnt going to be the face of that hick **** of a franchise. You would have more recognition with George Brett than any former player of the Chiefs.

KCStud
07-03-2012, 10:16 PM
Wow, never heard the term horse face before :p is that the best you can come up with? Bet you would give anything to of ever had him play for your loser team.

Bet you wish Manning would of at least taken a look at KC, wait he probably did and in 2 seconds he said hell no.

Fact is that Denver, with everything combined is and has been a superior franchise.

By 1 SB ha

Tombstone RJ
07-03-2012, 10:17 PM
Oh so that means he doesn't matter. Typical Bronco logic. The 80's were over 20 years ago, maybe those years shouldn't count either because they were so long ago.

You are the one who said that Manning chose the Broncos because of Elway. This is your logic.

Tombstone RJ
07-03-2012, 10:20 PM
Best QB in NFL history btw :strong:

One of the best for sure, but he's not a chef, he's a niner.

KCStud
07-03-2012, 10:22 PM
Exactly, so why did you bring up Dawson as if that has any effect on QBs wanting to come to the Chiefs. That was my point. If QBs want to come to Denver because of Elway, that is pretty damn sweet. You have no one that a QB can hang on to to say, "Such and such were great QBs here and if they were franchise QBs for the Chiefs then I want to be a Chief."
Face it dude, there is no good face for the franchise except maybe one that died in a car accident and one that left a few years back for Atlanta. Montana isnt going to be the face of that hick **** of a franchise. You would have more recognition with George Brett than any former player of the Chiefs.

I brought up Dawson because he is a hero. And so is Joe Delaney dumbass. Will Shields, Tony G, Bobby Bell, Hank Stram, Otis Taylor, Willie Lanier, Emmit Thomas, Buck Buchanon.

You have no clue what you're talking about man.

KCStud
07-03-2012, 10:23 PM
One of the best for sure, but he's not a chef, he's a niner.

Pretty sure he is the best. He owned on the 49ers. He even owned Elway at his own game on a different team.

Stuck in Cali
07-03-2012, 10:23 PM
By 1 SB ha

You do not comprehend well. To you is just SB wins that make a team a better one than another? If so you better find a new team.

KCStud
07-03-2012, 10:25 PM
You do not comprehend well. To you is just SB wins that make a team a better one than another? If so you better find a new team.

Nobody outside of Colorado remembers or cares to remember that your team got its ass kicked in multiple SB's. They only care who won it.

Tombstone RJ
07-03-2012, 10:28 PM
Pretty sure he is the best. He owned on the 49ers. He even owned Elway at his own game on a different team.

Pretty sure he's one of the best and definitely sure he's a niner.

Stuck in Cali
07-03-2012, 10:31 PM
Nobody outside of Colorado remembers or cares to remember that your team got it's ass kicked in the SB. They only care who won it.

I remember all of the losses, so do a ton of people. It made the 1st win even that more special.

You have to get there to loose, something you will not experience for a long time if ever (getting to the big dance that Is). Even though we lost some does not take away that our franchise is superior than yours In many ways.

Houshyamama
07-04-2012, 12:15 AM
This is a ****ing bloodbath. KCStud has no idea how stupid he sounds.

Bronco Rob
07-04-2012, 06:29 AM
Best QB in NFL history btw :strong:


put Elway behind all of Joe Montana's lines in San Francisco and Montana behind all of Elway's lines in Denver. Nothing much changes in San Francisco, but by the age of 28 Montana is either dead or selling life insurance.

Give Elway Roger Craig Tom Rathman Brent Jones John Taylor and Jerry Rice. Not to Mention Bill Walsh, George Seifert and Bob "leg whip" McKittrick. Hanna Montana can have Sammy Winder, Clarence Kay, Mark Jackson and Vance Johnson...oh and Dan Reeves




:thumbs:

Kaylore
07-04-2012, 07:45 AM
I'm not surprised after grilling me on my age that Sheepstud refuses to divulge his own.

/expected disappointment.

maher_tyler
07-04-2012, 09:41 AM
Hilarious! at a Chiefs fan defending his ****ty team on a Broncos board!

Anikai
07-04-2012, 11:30 AM
My dad was telling me how awesome the Chiefs once were. Then I woke up.

Anikai
07-04-2012, 11:32 AM
...Still never seen a female Chiefs fan..

Tombstone RJ
07-04-2012, 12:50 PM
Memories...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fvPxzQBIafo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

KCStud
07-04-2012, 09:32 PM
put Elway behind all of Joe Montana's lines in San Francisco and Montana behind all of Elway's lines in Denver. Nothing much changes in San Francisco, but by the age of 28 Montana is either dead or selling life insurance.

Give Elway Roger Craig Tom Rathman Brent Jones John Taylor and Jerry Rice. Not to Mention Bill Walsh, George Seifert and Bob "leg whip" McKittrick. Hanna Montana can have Sammy Winder, Clarence Kay, Mark Jackson and Vance Johnson...oh and Dan Reeves




:thumbs:

The talent on the Elways teams was clearly enough to make it to the SB, so quit crying about it. Elway couldn't get it done in the big game until his 15th season.
Montana was clutch for 2 teams. He beat Elway at his own game as a Niner and as a Chief.
And he had 2 come from behind wins in the playoffs as a Chief. He's the most clutch QB ever.

KCStud
07-04-2012, 09:35 PM
Memories...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fvPxzQBIafo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yes, memories. Indeed.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hloZRzozEIc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

KCStud
07-04-2012, 09:36 PM
I'm not surprised after grilling me on my age that Sheepstud refuses to divulge his own.

/expected disappointment.

How about we start with your age.

razorwire77
07-04-2012, 09:46 PM
Memories...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fvPxzQBIafo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"You tried."

Stuck in Cali
07-04-2012, 10:31 PM
Yes, memories. Indeed.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hloZRzozEIc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

We have a lot more games and highlights to look back on than your one. And we have many more to come. Sad that the only thing you have too look back on is losing and complete mediocrity, and no glimpse of that changing in the future. Best thing for you to do is find another team, not the Broncos, we don't need any bandwagon types. I kinda feel sorry for you KcDud, but only for a fraction of a second.

errand
07-04-2012, 10:50 PM
...Still never seen a female Chiefs fan that didn't look like a guy


Fixed it for you.....

errand
07-04-2012, 10:59 PM
The talent on the Elways teams was clearly enough to make it to the SB, so quit crying about it. Elway couldn't get it done in the big game until his 15th season.
Montana was clutch for 2 teams. He beat Elway at his own game as a Niner and as a Chief.
And he had 2 come from behind wins in the playoffs as a Chief. He's the most clutch QB ever.

why does everyone feel they have to trash one hall of fame QB in order to make their favorite QB seem "better"....Neither Montana or Elway need apologize for their careers...both were excellent QB's who won alot more than they lost.

But for you to say he was the most clutch ever? You evidently have never heard of Otto Graham...took his team to 6 consecutive NFL title bouts and won 3 of them...including his first year playing in the NFL. Add in the 4 AAFC titles he won...that makes 7 titles in the 10 seasons he played professionally. Add in his one season of basketball he played (Rochester Royals who eventually became today's Sacramento Kings) where he won a championship as well...he was an astounding 8 for 11 in title bouts.

Montana isn't even KC's best Qb ever...that distinction goes to Len Dawson, who took you to two SB's and won one....

Kaylore
07-04-2012, 11:31 PM
How about we start with your age.

Um, I already told you my age several pages ago.

Irish Stout
07-05-2012, 10:19 AM
Nobody outside of Colorado remembers or cares to remember that your team got its ass kicked in multiple SB's. They only care who won it.

And we've won two, in your lifetime (I hope). Which makes our franchise the better one (or at least more cared about) according to you... although you did argue otherwise earlier.

I really get tired of you talking in circles. Its like trying to watch you lick your own ass.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 10:23 AM
Um, I already told you my age several pages ago.

Late 20's

maher_tyler
07-05-2012, 10:36 AM
Ahhhhhh yes...memories

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aYV8rZ2bPwQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-05-2012, 10:40 AM
Late 20's

So you are arguing with people who actually watched their favorite team win a Super Bowl or 2, without ever watching yours even play in a superbowl?

broncosteven
07-05-2012, 10:55 AM
The talent on the Elways teams was clearly enough to make it to the SB, so quit crying about it. Elway couldn't get it done in the big game until his 15th season.
Montana was clutch for 2 teams. He beat Elway at his own game as a Niner and as a Chief.
And he had 2 come from behind wins in the playoffs as a Chief. He's the most clutch QB ever.

Who would you rather have on your SB team

Steve Swell or Roger Craig
Vance Johnson or John Taylor
Mark Jackson or Jerry Rice

Elway's 80's teams had no business being in 3 SB's, they made it there on the back of Elway.

razorwire77
07-05-2012, 11:10 AM
Who would you rather have on your SB team

Steve Swell or Roger Craig
Vance Johnson or John Taylor
Mark Jackson or Jerry Rice

Elway's 80's teams had no business being in 3 SB's, they made it there on the back of Elway.

Not to mention Tom Rathman who caught like 70 balls during that 89 season, Brent Jones who was one of the best TE's in the league and Steve Young as a backup QB.

And that's not even considering a defense that had one of the top 10 players of all-time on it.

I had to wiki this, but that Niners team lost two games in the 89 season by a total of 5 points.

jerseyboiler120
07-05-2012, 11:33 AM
Not only is kcdud too young to have seen the chefs in SB, but it was so long ago we can probably only dig up some black and white still pictures for him.

maher_tyler
07-05-2012, 11:36 AM
Who would you rather have on your SB team

Steve Swell or Roger Craig
Vance Johnson or John Taylor
Mark Jackson or Jerry Rice

Elway's 80's teams had no business being in 3 SB's, they made it there on the back of Elway.

This is what everyone fails to realize...

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-05-2012, 12:17 PM
This is what everyone fails to realize...

Some people understand those teams were stacked with HOFers. KCstud is not one to use common sense though. It was all Montana.

broncosteven
07-05-2012, 12:22 PM
Some people understand those teams were stacked with HOFers. KCstud is not one to use common sense though. It was all Montana.

Even the 1966 team that LOST the 1st SB has more HOF'ers than any from the 1980's Broncos teams.

broncosteven
07-05-2012, 12:23 PM
Not to mention Tom Rathman who caught like 70 balls during that 89 season, Brent Jones who was one of the best TE's in the league and Steve Young as a backup QB.

And that's not even considering a defense that had one of the top 10 players of all-time on it.

I had to wiki this, but that Niners team lost two games in the 89 season by a total of 5 points.

I could have gone on but it pained me to compare Atwater and Smith to Lott.

Requiem
07-05-2012, 12:24 PM
KCDud is more like it.

broncocalijohn
07-05-2012, 02:42 PM
This is what everyone fails to realize...

Everyone? I think only the very young KCdud thinks our 80s teams were full of studs. Tough for him to know better when he can only see those teams on reruns and seeing Elway turn above average players into superstars.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 03:49 PM
So you are arguing with people who actually watched their favorite team win a Super Bowl or 2, without ever watching yours even play in a superbowl?

You act like you were there at the SB watching it in person. Unless you were, it's the same concept of watching it on TV.

broncocalijohn
07-05-2012, 03:54 PM
You act like you were there at the SB watching it in person. Unless you were, it's the same concept of watching it on TV.

LOL! YOu cant figure out that he is stating that he actually watched his team LIVE and not on some short 5 minute documentary of "Chiefs and Their Dominating Years" on some local independent station. You know, the film in black and white with Hank Stram being bleeped every few words and seeing Len Dawson go around the 180 pound running backs?

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-05-2012, 04:13 PM
You act like you were there at the SB watching it in person. Unless you were, it's the same concept of watching it on TV.

Huh? What does anything you just said have to do with watching your favorite team in a Super Bowl. Regardless if you watch it on TV or in person, the point being made is you haven't done either cause in all your existence your team hasn't given you the chance to do either.


Thank you for just proving my common sense post.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 05:28 PM
Huh? What does anything you just said have to do with watching your favorite team in a Super Bowl. Regardless if you watch it on TV or in person, the point being made is you haven't done either cause in all your existence your team hasn't given you the chance to do either.


Thank you for just proving my common sense post.

Yes and that is something I can't wait to see, as I have seen every one of my favorite teams win one (Thunder will win one soon that's a given) except KC.
To think that KC is the same team as they were in the 70's and 80's (which I don't give a **** about because I wasn't alive) is stupid. I love it that people act like I've watched the team for 40 years without seeing them win a SB.

In my lifetime, KC's had some very good teams most of the time. 90's had great teams, the Vermeil years were good teams.
I think our new GM has done a good job of building one of the worst football teams I've ever seen (thank you King Carl) into a very strong team.
QB isn't figured out yet, but then again, has Pioli had a real opportunity to draft one? Nope.

I don't care about how bad KC was for a long time from the 1970 to 1989. What I care about is the here and now, and I think the team is definitely on its way up. With a good QB, KC is a 13-3 team IMO.

broncosteven
07-05-2012, 05:31 PM
... and I think the team is definitely on its way up. With a good QB, KC is a 13-3 team IMO.

Which will go one and done in the playoffs not managing a 1st down until late in the 3rd quarter.

IMO KFC SUCKS ANAL HOLES

errand
07-05-2012, 05:58 PM
Yes and that is something I can't wait to see, as I have seen every one of my favorite teams win one (Thunder will win one soon that's a given) except KC.

Well, when debating football...nobody cares about the NBA, or MLB


To think that KC is the same team as they were in the 70's and 80's (which I don't give a **** about because I wasn't alive) is stupid.

Well, actually, what's stupid is you thinking they're not....and you should know your team's history...I wasn't a Broncos fan until '74...but I know who Scotty Glacken was....


I love it that people act like I've watched the team for 40 years without seeing them win a SB.

No...you've watched them for about 20 years without seeing them IN a SB...let alone winning one.

In my lifetime, KC's had some very good teams most of the time. 90's had great teams, the Vermeil years were good teams.

Good, yes...but obviously not good enough. Since the Chiefs SB win after 1969 season you've gone 3-11 in the post-season, including losing 5 straight


I think our new GM has done a good job of building one of the worst football teams I've ever seen (thank you King Carl) into a very strong team.
QB isn't figured out yet, but then again, has Pioli had a real opportunity to draft one? Nope.

You're better now than you were a few seasons ago..but you're gonna need to find a way to keep your better players outta the Mayo Clinic

I don't care about how bad KC was for a long time from the 1970 to 1989. What I care about is the here and now, and I think the team is definitely on its way up. With a good QB, KC is a 13-3 team IMO.

Knowing your team's history is important....knowing how bad the Broncos were in the 60's and early 70's makes our success since '76 all that much more exciting.....and unfortunately for you, you don't have a good QB.





in bold

KCStud
07-05-2012, 05:59 PM
Which will go one and done in the playoffs not managing a 1st down until late in the 3rd quarter.

IMO KFC SUCKS ANAL HOLES

Good job. Good effort.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 06:03 PM
in bold

Team history means jack ****. If it did, the Broncos wouldn't have won a SB in the 90's because they never could 37 years before.

Stuck in Cali
07-05-2012, 06:12 PM
Team history means jack ****. If it did, the Broncos wouldn't have won a SB in the 90's because they never could 37 years before.

Sounds to me you jumped on a bandwagon, the wrong one I might add. Maybe you liked the colors. Anyways, and now your trying to convince yourself your right. Got news for ya KcDud, you chose wrong.

Stuck in Cali
07-05-2012, 06:14 PM
Team history means jack ****. If it did, the Broncos wouldn't have won a SB in the 90's because they never could 37 years before.

If team history means jack ****, you need to pick another sport to follow, maybe darts might suit ya.

cutthemdown
07-05-2012, 06:18 PM
Team history means jack ****. If it did, the Broncos wouldn't have won a SB in the 90's because they never could 37 years before.

millions of sports fans, writers, athletes would disagree. You are saying Boston Celtics, Lakers, New York Yankees, Steelers, teams with many many championships in different decades means something. It even means something to the players today. Players on teams with great traditions and history play harder, it means more to them. You think some new player on the Steelers thinks he can get away with being a turd on the field? Hell no he realizes that the players, the fans, the owners know what a good player looks like.

You get over to teams with just really poor histories, like the Chiefs, and the atmosphere is completely different. It's like no one really cares if you go 6-10 and miss playoffs.

You can say they don't matter to you because you are young and didn't watch back then, but that only shows what a noob to football you are. You should just sit back and learn.

Having said that the Queefs have a nice roster. Olilne should be pretty good, secondary is good and they have a few nice players in the front 7.

Still though your QB is not in the top 20 even league wide and if a QB driven league. So he can really make or break you based on just not completing a 3rd down pass when he should.

If Charles goes back to making huge plays, which i sort of hope he does hes on my fantasy team, then they will be tough to beat.

Otherwise I think they go down hard because they won't get enough from the QB spot.

IMO Orton better then Cassel.

errand
07-05-2012, 06:19 PM
Team history means jack ****. If it did, the Broncos wouldn't have won a SB in the 90's because they never could 37 years before.

Actually the Broncos learned from their history....

They learned that to win the SB, your team needed to be bigger, stronger, and more balanced....and again, the fact they weren't very good in the first 15 years of their existence made their winning division titles, making the playoffs, and going to Sb that much more enjoyable to a fan.

But if you insist on saying history doesn't mean jack ****...well, OK. Your team's history in your lifetime is they suck

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-05-2012, 06:20 PM
Team history means jack ****. If it did, the Broncos wouldn't have won a SB in the 90's because they never could 37 years before.

Exactly how a bandwagon fan thinks. If you had any respect gained on this site, it got wiped out with that comment. Team history is an important part of what being a long term fan, player, employee, alum, cities are all about.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 06:25 PM
Actually the Broncos learned from their history....

They learned that to win the SB, your team needed to be bigger, stronger, and more balanced....and again, the fact they weren't very good in the first 15 years of their existence made their winning division titles, making the playoffs, and going to Sb that much more enjoyable to a fan.

But if you insist on saying history doesn't mean jack ****...well, OK. Your team's history in your lifetime is they suck

KC had the most wins of any team in the 90's, but continue to compare them to the Cleveland Browns.

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-05-2012, 06:25 PM
I guess your comment magnifies the mentality of a failed franchise. Ask ANY steeler(example of storied history) fan and they'll say team history is important. A chiefs fan thinks otherwise cause that history is filled with burps and turds.

cutthemdown
07-05-2012, 06:26 PM
Broncos won the Superbowl because they had HOF on the offense, and one of them was the QB. Without a great QB your chances go way down. You can still do it, but look at the Ravens. Even with a kick ass defense they have been mostly coming up short. Why? no elite QB.

cutthemdown
07-05-2012, 06:27 PM
KC had the most wins of any team in the 90's, but continue to compare them to the Cleveland Browns.

They just have a history of choking in the playoffs, not winning at all, getting bounced, not having what it takes.

We look at this team and see Matt Cassel, we don't think he changes all that. They will still come up short when they go against teams with better play at the QB spot.

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-05-2012, 06:27 PM
KC had the most wins of any team in the 90's, but continue to compare them to the Cleveland Browns.

He has to use the browns as an example cause that recent comparison holds water. And you are telling us only recent results count.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 06:27 PM
Exactly how a bandwagon fan thinks. If you had any respect gained on this site, it got wiped out with that comment. Team history is an important part of what being a long term fan, player, employee, alum, cities are all about.

Teams change and that's the point of my post. The Broncos were the same old team until Ratty came and made the changes needed to help Elway win.
Saying a team is going to be the same as they were 30 years ago is foolish.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 06:31 PM
This whole thread has to have has to use the Chiefs as an example cause that historical comparison holds water. And you are telling us SB appearances count so much.

My point exactly.

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-05-2012, 06:32 PM
Teams change and that's the point of my post. The Broncos were the same old team until Ratty came and made the changes needed to help Elway win.
Saying a team is going to be the same as they were 30 years ago is foolish.

Bad teams change. They change ownership. They change cities. They change front offices. They change fans. Etc etc. the true elite franchises have all been consistent. I look at the steelers and see their fans FO and aura the same as decades ago. Same goes with other sports franchises who go decades without long slumps.

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-05-2012, 06:33 PM
My point exactly.

I see you changed my words. Not sure why.

errand
07-05-2012, 06:34 PM
KC had the most wins of any team in the 90's, but continue to compare them to the Cleveland Browns.


I beg to differ ...SF 49ers had the most wins (113), followed by the Buffalo (103)...then your boys (102)

Again...know your history.

Stuck in Cali
07-05-2012, 06:34 PM
It all boils down to is the Chiefs suck, and KcDud is clueless.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 06:35 PM
Bad teams change. They change ownership. They change cities. They change front offices. They change fans. Etc etc. the true elite franchises have all been consistent. I look at the steelers and see their fans FO and aura the same as decades ago. Same goes with other sports franchises who go decades without long slumps.

Yes but not many teams have that kind of stability. That's what makes the Steelers one of the best organizations in sports.

broncocalijohn
07-05-2012, 06:36 PM
If team history means jack ****, you need to pick another sport to follow, maybe darts might suit ya.

I dont know if that is a good idea. He would probably find a dart board that was missing the 12-16 but tell us how awesome his scores are hitting the 11s all day long while forgetting to mention the 17 through 20 and the bullseye has been in place the whole time.

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-05-2012, 06:37 PM
Yes but not many teams have that kind of stability. That's what makes the Steelers one of the best organizations in sports.

And a reason why team history means something.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 06:37 PM
I beg to differ ...SF 49ers had the most wins (113), followed by the Buffalo (103)...then your boys (102)

Again...know your history.

I see the point blew right past you as usual.

broncosteven
07-05-2012, 06:52 PM
Good job. Good effort.

The Thread title is KFC Sucks I was just getting it back on topic.

Tombstone RJ
07-05-2012, 06:55 PM
Team history means jack ****. If it did, the Broncos wouldn't have won a SB in the 90's because they never could 37 years before.

Translation: kc's history for the past 40 years sucks so I chose to ignore it. I'mma here and now kinda guy.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 07:01 PM
And a reason why team history means something.

They've had the same itinerary for years and it's worked great, but teams copy other teams success when they have to do well. The Bears and Raiders have had a similar structure too (though Al's plan sucked), but the Raiders are about to change everything.

Not many teams have the same plan for so many years.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 07:03 PM
Translation: kc's history for the past 40 years sucks so I chose to ignore it. I'mma here and now kinda guy.

More like I wasn't alive (or old enough to know football) in the worst 2 decades in franchise history.

The Broncos pre-97 were the Chiefs in my lifetime. Great teams that couldn't get it done when it mattered.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 07:04 PM
The Thread title is KFC Sucks I was just getting it back on topic.

Well good job kid. Good effort.

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-05-2012, 07:16 PM
More like I wasn't alive (or old enough to know football) in the worst 2 decades in franchise history.

The Broncos pre-97 were the Chiefs in my lifetime. Great teams that couldn't get it done when it mattered.

Not really. Since the broncos pre97 at least went to 4 superbowls, where as the chiefs in your lifetime hasn't gotten there at all.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-05-2012, 07:28 PM
More like I wasn't alive (or old enough to know football) in the worst 2 decades in franchise history.

The Broncos pre-97 were the Chiefs in my lifetime. Great teams that couldn't get it done when it mattered.

LOL LOL LOL
If we were the " Great team that couldn't get it done when it mattered." You guys are the " Team the that didn't matter to get anything done."

Broncobiv
07-05-2012, 07:32 PM
More like I wasn't alive (or old enough to know football) in the worst 2 decades in franchise history.

The Broncos pre-97 were the Chiefs in my lifetime. Great teams that couldn't get it done when it mattered.

The Broncos pre-97 made it to 4 Super Bowls. Calling them "great teams" is actually pretty accurate. But how many of your Chiefs teams, during your lifetime as you say, made it to the Super Bowl? None? How about just making it to the AFCC game? Once, and you lost it. In fact, during your lifetime (and even farther back - since 1969), the Chiefs have only won 3 playoff games, total. Only made it out of the divisional round one time. Since 1969. Wow.

Holy ****. Your franchise blows. Comparing them to the Broncos is beyond unfair to Denver. It seems that KC couldn't even get it done before it mattered...they never really got close.

broncosteven
07-05-2012, 07:36 PM
Well good job kid. Good effort.

Steve Bono

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-05-2012, 07:45 PM
The Broncos pre-97 made it to 4 Super Bowls. Calling them "great teams" is actually pretty accurate. But how many of your Chiefs teams, during your lifetime as you say, made it to the Super Bowl? None? How about just making it to the AFCC game? Once, and you lost it. In fact, during your lifetime (and even farther back - since 1969), the Chiefs have only won 3 playoff games, total. Only made it out of the divisional round one time. Since 1969. Wow.

Holy ****. Your franchise blows. Comparing them to the Broncos is beyond unfair to Denver. It seems that KC couldn't even get it done before it mattered...they never really got close.
Here's the messed thing from all of that. Somehow there are more chefs in the HOF. WTF!

Anikai
07-05-2012, 07:50 PM
Here's the messed thing from all of that. Somehow there are more chefs in the HOF. WTF!

Technically yes, but 1 John Elway is equal to 4 Queef HOFers

Anikai
07-05-2012, 07:53 PM
Look at all these youtube videos I found of chiefs playoff wins:











And don't forget this one:







Good memories KFC

Anikai
07-05-2012, 08:02 PM
Fixed it for you.....

No they don't exist at all. Im starting to wonder who is populating the earth with these morons.. Sources say that there's one fat queen-ant style mother Chief, deep in a trailer somewhere in Missouri pumping out hundreds of Ricky Stanzi fans a day..

errand
07-05-2012, 08:05 PM
I see the point blew right past you as usual.

You said the chiefs was the winningest team of the '90s.... What other point was there?

KCStud
07-05-2012, 08:13 PM
The Broncos pre-97 made it to 4 Super Bowls. Calling them "great teams" is actually pretty accurate. But how many of your Chiefs teams, during your lifetime as you say, made it to the Super Bowl? None? How about just making it to the AFCC game? Once, and you lost it. In fact, during your lifetime (and even farther back - since 1969), the Chiefs have only won 3 playoff games, total. Only made it out of the divisional round one time. Since 1969. Wow.

Holy ****. Your franchise blows. Comparing them to the Broncos is beyond unfair to Denver. It seems that KC couldn't even get it done before it mattered...they never really got close.

Again, I don't give a **** about KC being terrible in the 70's and 80's. I didn't watch it every year so your point is mute.
And you motioning that KC's SB doesn't matter is laughable.

Tombstone RJ
07-05-2012, 08:19 PM
Again, I don't give a **** about KC being terrible in the 70's and 80's. I didn't watch it every year so your point is mute.
And you motioning that KC's SB doesn't matter is laughable.

Translation: I have a selective memory. :curtsey:

Broncobiv
07-05-2012, 08:25 PM
Again, I don't give a **** about KC being terrible in the 70's and 80's. I didn't watch it every year so your point is mute.
And you motioning that KC's SB doesn't matter is laughable.
I tried to type a reply without being a grammar Nazi towards your use of the phrase "your point is mute." I failed. You're an idiot.

On a related point (the point about you being an idiot...see a theme here?), when did I say that the Chiefs Super Bowl didn't matter? I never said that. You were talking about Chiefs/Broncos postseason performances during your lifetime, so I kept my comments to that time-frame. Never mentioned your Super Bowl over 4 decades ago. That was "before your lifetime". Try re-reading my post again. Granted, re-reading it will probably do you no good due to your obvious lack of comprehension regarding the English language. But just for fun, please try agan.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-05-2012, 08:35 PM
Technically yes, but 1 John Elway is equal to 4 Queef HOFers

True dat! But that still doesn't make me feel better.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 08:37 PM
Translation: I have a selective memory. :curtsey:

Since I've been old enough to watch the Chiefs and understand who they are, they have a record of 189-161 with 3 playoff wins, 12 winning seasons, 8 losing seasons (1 was 8-8) and have been to the playoffs in 12 of the 21 seasons.

So saying that I've seen my team suck like they did in the 70's and 80's is plain stupid. Translation: you can't comprehend ****.

Tombstone RJ
07-05-2012, 08:45 PM
Since I've been old enough to watch the Chiefs and understand who they are, they have a record of 189-161 with 3 playoff wins, 12 winning seasons, 8 losing seasons (1 was 8-8) and have been to the playoffs in 12 of the 21 seasons.

So saying that I've seen my team suck like they did in the 70's and 80's is plain stupid. Translation: you can't comprehend ****.

So you've been watching kc since the early 1990's? Therefore you only acknowledge this franchise since that time. Except of course for the only SB win 40 years ago and Len Dawson? Again, you have selective memory because you're a choad.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 08:50 PM
So you've been watching kc since the early 1990's? Therefore you only acknowledge this franchise since that time. Except of course for the only SB win 40 years ago and Len Dawson? Again, you have selective memory because you're a choad.

Way to assume slappy. Chiefs history is what it is. I didn't watch the 70's and 80's. I watched the SB win (obviously).

broncocalijohn
07-05-2012, 09:03 PM
More like I wasn't alive (or old enough to know football) in the worst 2 decades in franchise history.

The Broncos pre-97 were the Chiefs in my lifetime. Great teams that couldn't get it done when it mattered.

You can't be for real. You are digging yourself a bigger hole each time you post. Your irrelevant Chiefs is a pipe dream of our pre 1997 broncos. We made it to 4 superbowls and 5 afc championship games. You would need to live another 40 years to even come close to that type of franchise for your "lifetime". What a moronic statement but thanks for the laughs.

Tombstone RJ
07-05-2012, 09:03 PM
Way to assume slappy. Chiefs history is what it is. I didn't watch the 70's and 80's. I watched the SB win (obviously).

Hilarious!

good lord you are an idiot. You throw out all these numbers that basically go back about 20 years or so and then you say you ignore the 80s because your team sucked and you choose to focus on the Marty Shottenheimer years as the "glory days." I'm not assuming anything, you are framing your own history. Again, selective memory.

Broncobiv
07-05-2012, 09:08 PM
More like I wasn't alive (or old enough to know football) in the worst 2 decades in franchise history.

The Broncos pre-97 were the Chiefs in my lifetime. Great teams that couldn't get it done when it mattered.

Step 1: Determine what your "lifetime" is.

Since I've been old enough to watch the Chiefs and understand who they are, they have a record of 189-161 with 3 playoff wins, 12 winning seasons, 8 losing seasons (1 was 8-8) and have been to the playoffs in 12 of the 21 seasons.

So you've been watching the Chiefs since what, the 1991 season?

Step 2: Analyze your argument and attempt to figure out what the hell your point is. Referring back to your previous posts there, your big argument seems to be that the Chiefs were better than the Broncos during the years of 1991-1996. A span where you made it as far as the AFCC game once and lost. Wow. Congratulations. Now THAT is something to be proud of! :thumbsup:

Drunken.Broncoholic
07-05-2012, 09:09 PM
This is looking ugly for you KC. Best to just close the laptop and try again tomorrow. There's reality grenades being thrown at you from every angle in here by OMers. That "mute" grenade was a direct hit. Nothin left in here but little red and white chunks

Broncobiv
07-05-2012, 09:16 PM
Arguing with KCDud is like, and at the same time unlike, arguing with Boob. Like arguing with Boob, it's easy to put him in his place and beat his ridiculous claims with simple facts and reasoning. But, unlike arguing with Boob, at least Boob has some knowledge of this game we call professional football. Not very much, but at least enough that he stands a slim-to-none chance at holding his own in the discussion (compared to just "none" for KCDud).

P.S. Boob...that is the closest thing to a compliment that you'll ever get from me. Enjoy.

Tombstone RJ
07-05-2012, 09:18 PM
Arguing with KCDud is like, and at the same time unlike, arguing with Boob. Like arguing with Boob, it's easy to put him in his place and beat his ridiculous claims with simple facts and reasoning. But, unlike arguing with Boob, at least Boob has some knowledge of this game we call professional football. Not very much, but at least enough that he stands a slim-to-none chance at holding his own in the discussion (compared to just "none" for KCDud).

P.S. Boob...that is the closest thing to a compliment that you'll ever get from me. Enjoy.

A new low! You actually elevated boob over kcdud. Wow...

mwill07
07-05-2012, 09:19 PM
More like I wasn't alive (or old enough to know football) in the worst 2 decades in franchise history.

The Broncos pre-97 were the Chiefs in my lifetime. Great teams that couldn't get it done when it mattered.

pretty sure it mattered to Marty Shottenheimer when he lost in the AFCCG in 1986, 1987, and 1989. Pretty sure it mattered to Warren Moon in 1987 and 1991. Pretty sure it mattered to Chuck Knoll in 1989. Pretty sure it mattered to defending AFCChamp Patriots in 1886.

No, all playoff games mean something. It was unfortunate that the Broncos were outclassed by clearly superior teams in the Super Bowl, but let's not pretend that playoff games are meaningless.

Hell, they STILL replay the 1986 AFCCG on NFLN. To this day, I can't go to Cleveland and mention I'm a Bronco fan without being told how much Elway is hated.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 09:28 PM
Hilarious!

good lord you are an idiot. You throw out all these numbers that basically go back about 20 years or so and then you say you ignore the 80s because your team sucked and you choose to focus on the Marty Shottenheimer years as the "glory days." I'm not assuming anything, you are framing your own history. Again, selective memory.

Never said ignore the 80's. Again you fail to read. Just stop while you're ahead slappy.

I didn't "choose to focus on anything". I didn't watch the Chiefs in the 80's because I wasn't alive or I was too young to understand. What part of that do you not understand? Do I need to draw pictures for you like a small child? Hilarious!

I didn't go through the rough 20 years of never being competitive like morons like you seem to claim. In fact I saw the Chiefs go to the playoffs every year in the beginning.

So this whole concept of you thinking my team has completely sucked like the Royals and never were competitive enough to have a winning season in my lifetime is pure garbage.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 09:33 PM
pretty sure it mattered to Marty Shottenheimer when he lost in the AFCCG in 1986, 1987, and 1989. Pretty sure it mattered to Warren Moon in 1987 and 1991. Pretty sure it mattered to Chuck Knoll in 1989. Pretty sure it mattered to defending AFCChamp Patriots in 1886.

No, all playoff games mean something. It was unfortunate that the Broncos were outclassed by clearly superior teams in the Super Bowl, but let's not pretend that playoff games are meaningless.

Hell, they STILL replay the 1986 AFCCG on NFLN. To this day, I can't go to Cleveland and mention I'm a Bronco fan without being told how much Elway is hated.

That's just Cleveland. If you mention Elway, MJ or LBJ you're in trouble.

Houshyamama
07-05-2012, 10:04 PM
Way to assume slappy. Chiefs history is what it is. I didn't watch the 70's and 80's. I watched the SB win (obviously).

Dude just go away, you're not fighting the good fight. You're not making any good arguments. You just sound ridiculous.

Stuck in Cali
07-05-2012, 10:06 PM
When you become a fan, and argue for a certain team. You are either all in, or a bandwagon jumper.

Team history, is exactly what it is, History. Without it you know nothing about the team. The past is just as important as the future when your talking about a NFL franchise.

Again by you saying team history doesn't mean jack ****, you have no points to argue here, or should quote any stats of any team at all.

With the hole your digging yourself into, how close to China are you? Because it looks to be a big deep hole.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 10:43 PM
When you become a fan, and argue for a certain team. You are either all in, or a bandwagon jumper.

Team history, is exactly what it is, History. Without it you know nothing about the team. The past is just as important as the future when your talking about a NFL franchise.

Again by you saying team history doesn't mean jack ****, you have no points to argue here, or should quote any stats of any team at all.

With the hole your digging yourself into, how close to China are you? Because it looks to be a big deep hole.

Please do tell what the 1970 Chiefs have to do with the 2012 Chiefs? History matters, but it has nothing to do with the modern day teams unless you're the Steelers or a small handful of other teams.

2012 Chiefs have a different owner, GM, coaching staff, system, everything. So thinking that the Chiefs are going to be terrible like they used to be simply because they were for a long time is the stupidest of stupid assumptions that only a brokeback mt fan would suggest.

GreatBronco16
07-05-2012, 10:51 PM
So thinking that the Chiefs are going to be terrible like they used to be simply because they were for a long time is the stupidest of stupid assumptions that only a brokeback mt fan would suggest.

Well so far the quiefs are proving just that.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 10:58 PM
Well so far the quiefs are proving just that.

The Chiefs of the last 2 decades are far superior to the Chiefs of the 70's and 80's and it's not close.

And your brokeback mt vision isn't helping you...

Stuck in Cali
07-05-2012, 11:25 PM
The Chiefs of the last 2 decades are far superior to the Chiefs of the 70's and 80's and it's not close.

And your brokeback mt vision isn't helping you...

You mention that movie a lot, either it must be your favorite, or you live it.

Stuck in Cali
07-05-2012, 11:27 PM
Please do tell what the 1970 Chiefs have to do with the 2012 Chiefs? History matters, but it has nothing to do with the modern day teams unless you're the Steelers or a small handful of other teams.

2012 Chiefs have a different owner, GM, coaching staff, system, everything. So thinking that the Chiefs are going to be terrible like they used to be simply because they were for a long time is the stupidest of stupid assumptions that only a brokeback mt fan would suggest.


Remember to you history doesn't me jack ****.

KipCorrington25
07-05-2012, 11:33 PM
You mention that movie a lot, either it must be your favorite, or you live it.

The movie is a little different, it went straight to DVD and was called Brokeback Meth House.

KCStud
07-05-2012, 11:40 PM
Remember to you history doesn't me jack ****.

You have great comprehension skills...

Stuck in Cali
07-06-2012, 12:42 AM
You have great comprehension skills...

I comprehend just fine, you on the other hand try and use history to make a point, then when you fail you say there is no need for history. I can understand you are trying to stand up for your team, but fail at doing so.