I'm beginning to think you're one of the biggest dumbasses on this forum.

He gave you indisputable facts, yet you deny them.

I've given you reasons for the Chiefs offensive failures and current lack of talent yet you deny it.

I think you need to take your show somewhere else.

That "luxury" has won 26 of 42 Super Bowls. If you throw in Brett Favre, who was traded for a number one, Roger Staubach (if not for his military requirement) and HOF'ers such as Joe Montana & Tom Brady (both of whom would have been the #1 overall pick in their respective draft years had anyone known what they'd become) and you're looking at 34 of 42.

I'd say it's imperitive to have a first round, franchise QB to even have a SHOT at a Super Bowl victory.

Do us both a favor, and put me on ignore.

:spock:

This is YOUR thread, titled:

Being a SB contender = having a Top 10 passing attack

My responses, filled with stats and facts, prove that to be incorrect.

Sorry, but don't see the strawman here...

Some people just can't admit they're wrong.

Here, I'll elaborate.

I was wrong about LJ. He's clearly no longer the best HB on the team.

I was wrong about Herm. His ability to draft/sign does not overpower his obvious SUCK at gameday management and overall faulure to gameplan.

I was wrong about Croyle. I thought the kid at least deserved the sea-....he doesn't. He can't even last week 1.

You don't just need talent you need true game-changing players to win a SB. Every team that's won a SB since 95 has has AT LEAST one.

We don't...

I'm not sure we even know whether we do or not at this point. We're two weeks into the season, and a third of the roster is almost young enough for you or I to be their dad (god, we're getting old). They shouldn't be the same players in December. That doesn't mean they won't be, but they shouldn't be.

Soooooooooo...as of RIGHT NOW, we don't have one.

And haven't in years...

Like everything else... I think the "philosophy" of a team is not as important as having the personnel and coaching to run it effectively.

You could make the case you need a lot of things to win a Super Bowl... because you do. To be the best team, you generally have to run the football, pass the football, and play defense and special teams effectively. That's why you're the best team. Everybody tries to find one or two things that are some kind of key. You're trying to outsmart yourself. Most of these teams could do many things effectively.

There have been Raiders and Patriots teams that pretty much exclusively passed the ball make the Super Bowl. Then you have teams like Pittsburgh and Chicago who were run-first, play defense teams that went to the Super Bowl too. They weren't much alike.

The only common thread among all these teams is that they played great defense in the playoffs to win. Shocker. Oldest cliche in the book, people try too hard to reinvent the wheel.

Last response to this point, take it seriously or laugh at it -- Certainly teams without a top 10 passing attack win SBs, and I stated that in the original post. My point is that those teams that don't have a superior passing attack are teams that won't have consistent playoff appearances/successes. Look at the teams the last few years that have been favorites for the SB, and they all have superior passing attacks. The NY Giants did not, and won the SB. Who were the favs to start this season? NE, Indy, SD, Dallas, GB. Now you can add Philly and Denver to that list for obvious reasons.

Let me go a step further -- when the playoffs come around, and the revised odds come for winning the SB come out, it will be the teams with the top passing attacks that will be the favorites. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY WILL WIN THE SB. It means that they have a better shot than the other teams, but luck plays a big role, so anyone could win.

I am really surprised that stating having a top passing attack in necessary for consistent post-season appearances is controversial. The Cowboys of the 1990s are the last team that had a nice multiyear run without their passing attack being the strength of the team. And it was pretty good, and some may argue it was the strength of the team.

Where it gets tricky is drafting -- sure, most of the star QBs are 1st rounders, but the hit rate is so low, what do you do? Do you always take a QB in later rounds hoping for the Romo or Brady, or do you risk getting a Ryan Leaf, Michael Vick, JaMarcus Russell and setting your franchise back for many years by taking them #1.

My problem with Herm is that he's never going to allow a star QB to develop. He wants a game manager, not a star QB. Even if Croyle had star potential, he'd never realize it under Herm. Herm is a run-first guy, and that style of play is all but dead.

I think you just answered your own question..

I think there are some great points in this thread, both sides. I'd also add that I don't think running the football is playing not to lose necessarily. It certainly can be. But like everything else, it's how you do it. the Steelers usually do a good job. They base their offense around the running game, for sure... but aren't afraid to strike at the right opportunity. They just try to play to their strengths.

When they run the football they're trying to attack you. More an attitude than anything. When the Colts won the Super Bowl.. in the playoffs they were primarily a running team. Manning really didn't play that well, so they stuck to the ground game and played off that. And it was obviously the smart move.