This will fire everybody up ...

The chiefs offense was ranked 4th in 2001, and thats with their number 1 receiver, eddie kennison, only playing 5 games...their top receiver that year, besides gonzalez, was Marvin Minnis who only got 33 catches for 511 yards and 1 td. It was also Trent Green's and Priest Holmes' first year on the team. If we have the 4th place offense next year, and it takes 2 years to get good at the system, other teams better really watch out

Dy-no-miiiiiiiiite. Seems quite logical. The mystery with Saunders has always been how can they produce with so little. I think he squeezes every angle of yardage possible, it will translate, everyear the skins have a new Off cord. saunders is a baller. The OG of it if I may.

They really weren't a playoff team??

That doesn't even deserve a response.They could be making a point about the Skins being overacheivers (that is winning more games than your situation dictates, has nothing to do with effort). If so, I can see where they are coming from, because a lot of teams overachieve. Seattle and Denver both overachieved last year.

I would make the arguement that the Skins underachieved last year (that is losing more games than their situation dictated). They had that 3 game losing streak, and could have easily won all those games. They vastly outgained both the Chiefs and Broncos in yards, losing only due to turnovers.

I think they should have been a 12-4 maybe 13-3 team last year. But hey, there's always this year.

I have a question because you guys know alot more about football than I. Do you guys realy think that they are throwing out Gibbs O book and completly moving to saunders system? If they do mix the systems will terms change to match Saunders system or can they keep some of Gibbs terms and some of Saunders. I just don't see them changing the whole system and changing all the play calling.
They're completely switching to saunder's system, but it's really not that much different. They both learned from Don Coryell. The only real difference is the terminology and the playcalling

I have a question because you guys know alot more about football than I. Do you guys realy think that they are throwing out Gibbs O book and completly moving to saunders system? If they do mix the systems will terms change to match Saunders system or can they keep some of Gibbs terms and some of Saunders. I just don't see them changing the whole system and changing all the play calling.Yeah they are, but I think the changes will be gradual, and that there wasnt a complete overhaul this offseason. I think the terminology changed to be consistent with Saunders's O, but the formations and plays we see this year will be a combination of Gibbs' and Saunders' offenses.

I guess that win in the playoffs was just a fluke.

:) I knew you'ed see it my way .:goodjob:

wilsowilsoSure hope that same person reviews us next year. Last year's team wasn't really a Super Bowl Champion team.....
I say they got the assistant to the assistant of mop and broom maintenance at Giant Stadium to give that quality review.

Now.now be nice.:soapbox:

5-1 in the division.

5 straight wins to close out the season, with 3 of those wins coming in the division.

I'd say that's earning a playoff berth. Sounds like a playoff team to me no matter what way you spin things.

5-1 in the division.

5 straight wins to close out the season, with 3 of those wins coming in the division.

I'd say that's earning a playoff berth. Sounds like a playoff team to me no matter what way you spin things.

3 of the wins coming on the road, too.

This guy makes no real point. Sounds pretty typical.

5-1 in the division.

Speaking of which, shouldn't a 5-1 record in the division make you division champ over a team that was 4-2 in the division?

Speaking of which, shouldn't a 5-1 record in the division make you division champ over a team that was 4-2 in the division?Only as a tiebreaker. Which is the way it is right now.