The Chiefs suck

[jerseyboiler120]

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]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

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]

Originally Posted by maher_tyler

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]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

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]

Originally Posted by razorwire77

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]

KCDud is more like it.

[broncocalijohn]

Originally Posted by maher_tyler

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]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

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]

Originally Posted by KCStud

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.

! 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]

Originally Posted by KCStud

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]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

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]

Originally Posted by KCStud

... 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]

Originally Posted by KCStud

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]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

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]

Originally Posted by errand

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]

Originally Posted by KCStud

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]

Originally Posted by KCStud

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]

Originally Posted by KCStud

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]

Originally Posted by KCStud

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]

Originally Posted by KCStud

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]

Originally Posted by errand

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by KCStud

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]

Originally Posted by KCStud

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.