K-9

I agree 100% so I'm not sure what argument you think I'm making above. I'll sum it up and say I'd have a lot more respect for people who make claims BEFORE HAND, with well reasoned logic behind them vs. the throngs of hindsight GMs who maintain they knew something all along after the fact.

Kubiak called the plays and Manning either ran them or checked out of them. All season. Rick Dennison: offensive coordinator genius! Right. Edit: Uh oh. Your predictable trail of minor insults is starting. It's only a matter of time before you lose it entirely. It's your cycle. But I have to say, "have some respect for 'the process' of discussion on this board" is perhaps the most hypocritical statement ever. I'll leave you alone now, though. It's just too easy.

While I appreciate the the explanation, it's not necessary as again, the point was that Dennison's title of "OC" was in name only. Kubiak called the plays and Manning agreed or not. All season. Now I know this wasn't your assertion, but I need to repeat how we went down this avenue of discussion about Manning and the Broncos. It was the idea put forth that Dennison was some sort of offensive innovator that would have gotten the same out of Mahomes as Reid did in KC. That is ludicrous.

If I had to guess, I say he's speaking of those in charge of delegating authority. Like McD in the coaches he hires and Beane in the players he procures.

Let the trashing begin!

I agree. People around him will have to play well, especially our LBs.

Oh there was no shortage of people around here knocking him as a prospect. But I wasn’t one of them. I hadn’t seen enough of him to comment one way or the other. I’d be more interested in those that were pounding the table for him. I remember a couple at the time, but that’s about it. Now, everybody acts like they knew it all the time. World is full of GMs with 20/20 hindsight. None of that is the point of my post though. The argument is whether or not Mahomes would have enjoyed the same immediate success here as he has in KC. I say no way for reasons I’ve already stated. Wrong again. I said Rick Dennison.knew to stay out of his way. That was Manning’s offense. Your specious point was that since Dennison has a SB ring as an OC, he was somehow a great OC, and Mahomes would have been lights out with him. That’s too funny for words. Edit: As it turns out, Dennison didn't even call plays that year, it was Kubiak. Makes your assertion even funnier. More inaccurate, but funnier none the less.

He still ran that offense, regardless. My post wasn’t a compliment to a Manning clearly in decline. It was that Dennison was just along for the ride.

No worries. Happens to everyone around here.

That’s nice, but I was quoting Chemical. What was that about reading comprehension? As for the rest of it, who said it doesn’t matter that they passed on Mahomes. Everything matters, including their deliberate strategy to go in an entirely different direction. Attacking posters I disagree with? That’s rich coming from you.

Like the old saying goes: pass to score, run to win.

There’s a difference between excusing a decision and making up complete fantasies to support criticism of them. But it’s a safe space to occupy. I think I’ll try it: If we had Mahomes, we would have won the Super Bowl by now! Edit: forgot to add how specious it is to say Dennison won a SB as an OC. But I’ll give him credit for being smart enough to stay out of Peyton Manning’s way.

I liked his comment about projecting where a player may be in two years and seven years. Seven years. Wow. Should I have some renewed hope for Darcy's or Murray's picks that are still mucking around somewhere out there?

Yeah, him too.

Especially if they get anything, ANYTHING!, out of Murphy on the left side. I'm hoping McD will scheme more pressure packages as well. I think that's a good strategy as it has been for decades in the league and I'm sure we will see it early and as often as we can't hold up against it.

Per the bold, there is no under estimating the importance of this aspect of his development.

Uh oh. Beasley is in your cross hairs. I look forward to your future trashing of him.

We are mired in the abyss of really, really bad drafts under Darcy R and Murray. They hit on very little, if anything, especially in the mid to later rounds where good teams find a gem or two. In the NHL, good drafts and talent development are critical. And we have screwed the pooch big time 10+ years now.

Mahomes is obviously good enough to win the SB now, but he can't do it by himself. Not sure what your point is. He may not have a SB caliber supporting cast just yet, especially on defense, but there were three Pro Bowlers (Hill, Kelce, Hunt) at skill positions to pitch to and Andy Reid who knows how to scheme guys open when he showed up. If you really, honestly think Mahomes would have won the SB or pitched 50 TD passes with a stable of Deonte Thompson, Zay Jones, Charles Clay, and Shady with Rick Dennison as the architect, what can I say? Other than I question your ability to be judging anyone's idiocy around here.

I get what you mean, but Gilmore was already good when he came into the league. Far less development required than Poyer. But yeah, I'm sure Belichick is grateful for getting a much more refined Gilmore after serving his apprenticeship in Buffalo. It's a common situation in the league though.

Throwing to the same stable of receivers you’ve regularly trashed? With the same RB you’ve been mocking forever? With Rick Dennison running the offense?

Again, it’s a complete waste of time engaging intractable viewpoints in an honest give and take. Waste of time. He will split hairs to the quantum level to argue a point.

Per the bold, you’re confusing me with people who don’t think choices, some poor, were made by McBeane. I just choose to accept them and move on rather than debate them. I find it unproductive at best. Of COURSE Mahomes wouldn’t have come into as good an offensive situation as we had in ‘16. That’s directly related to the point about him not having the same success here. And I don’t think I need to go any further than than saying Dennison vs. Reid and not having three Pro Bowl talents at the skill positions to surround him. Maybe Sammy could have been that, maybe Woods if he had stayed. Key word is “maybe.” We can never know which is why it’s absurd to state it like it’s a fact. No, McD didn’t inherit a total mess and had he just stood pat, that offense would have been better in ‘17, although Dennison wasn’t inspiring, Tailor was maxed out, Sammy wasn’t 100%, Clay was hobbling, Shady was starting his decline, and Woods was leaving anyway. But he didn’t inherit a first ballot Hall of Fame quarterback like Lynn did, either. Finally, he was hired to implement HIS vision, with his coaches, his players, and his philosophies. I’ll wait to see how it ends up before the final chapter is written. It’s far from over at this point. Please don’t act like it is. I You are the most miserable person in this forum. He is incapable of giving McDermott credit for anything. This renders honest debate impossible.

See my response above. You are impossible to have meaningful exchanges with because you SUPPOSE a rookie QB would have been the same QB and automatically have beaten the Bills and state that as fact. The Chiefs weren’t considered a talented offensive group? With a top five offense? And those four Pro Bowlers at skill positions? When you’re capable of an honest debate not dedicated to unreasonable assertions to make your points, get back to me. This is just more absurdity and not worth going any further with.