Many are saying the Chiefs dynasty is done .. I disagree !

[yidnar]

Do the Chiefs have girlie boy homo cheerleaders as msny NFL teams do now?

If so who cares which team wins the Super Bowl?

no they don't ! hope they never do !

 

[Robert W]

no .. he hasn't lost arm strength .. he proved that with a couple of long passes against Chicago a few days ago .

He will be fine so long as his brain is not hurt.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Since the Chiefs less than dominating performances in the 2024 season [barely winning most of their games] and the devastating loss to the Eagles at the SB last year many have been saying that the age of the Chiefs dynasty has come to an end ! I strongly disagree ! the Chiefs won 15 close games in 2024 with basically no OL protection for Mahomes ! well it appears that major issue may [and I do say may ] have been remedied ! with a better O line and injured players like Hollywood Brown and Rashee Rice returning to play for the team with the Mad Scientist Andy Reed as head coach and Spags as defensive coordinator the Chiefs will be a farce to reckon with .. a much much more dangerous force than the 2024 team !


AI Overview


Yes, the Chiefs are considered to have significantly improved their offensive line by addressing the weakness exposed in the 2024 Super Bowl, primarily through signing veteran Jaylon Moore and using their first-round draft pick on Josh Simmons, and trading away Joe Thuney to become younger and more athletic. While there are still some open questions, particularly on the left side with Kingsley Suamataia possibly moving to guard, the team now has more depth and talent to protect Patrick Mahomes and compete for another Super Bowl.


Key Offseason Moves

• Josh Simmons:
  .Opens in new tab
  The Chiefs drafted the Ohio State tackle with their first-round pick, seeing him as a potential future cornerstone of the line, though he is recovering from an injury.
  
  
• Jaylon Moore:
  .Opens in new tab
  The team signed the veteran free agent, who has experience with the 49ers and is expected to compete for a starting tackle position.
  
  
• Joe Thuney Trade:
  .Opens in new tab
  The Chiefs traded away their All-Pro guard, making their line younger and freeing up salary cap space.
  
  
• Kingsley Suamataia:
  .Opens in new tab
  The second-round pick from the 2024 draft struggled at left tackle and may now compete for the left guard position, offering more options for the team.

Why the Changes Were Needed

• Super Bowl Performance:
  .Opens in new tab
  The Chiefs' offensive line was heavily criticized after failing to protect Patrick Mahomes in the Super Bowl 59 loss to the Philadelphia Eagles.
  
  
• Mahomes' Protection:
  .Opens in new tab
  Mahomes was sacked a career-high 36 times in the 2024 regular season, highlighting the need for improvement.

Outlook for 2025

• More Depth and Versatility:
  The additions of Simmons and Moore have provided much-needed depth, and the team has the flexibility to move players like Suamataia to find the best starting lineup.
• Focus on Development:
  After a period of significant shuffling, the team hopes the new additions will gel to create

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CACCCC_enUS930&cs=1&sca_esv=57fde080c27848fc&q=Mahomes'+Protection&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw45zkiaWPAxVhLFkFHTPiMWMQxccNegQIMxAD&mstk=AUtExfAXS5L8DE0a23Xin3U4667LqeqL3TrAw9U8-yT5uK_pZsbz-8yxDQ4SEub33Vwp5kBw09VVrvVe1EVJPaE6kaBNJ0yqIOctfNlBsEaTOKhxNMdlP0W4Jq0d7poBz9s5o0E&csui=3

Lived in the KC metro for a long time.

Always happy to see them doing well.

Their fan base will be with them if they go 0-16.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You'll be surprised that there is a formula to determine if you have a dynasty or not:

What Makes An NFL Dynasty?

In terms of gratuitous overuse in the American sports vocabulary, “dynasty” is a word right up there with “Greatest Of All-Time” and “dominant.”So when

sportshistorynetwork.com

Dominance Level = (Championship wins + (championship losses x 0.5)) ÷ years

If the “Dominance Level” is greater than 0.5, the team might be fairly called a dynasty. This equation is nearly the mathematical expression of the definition of “baseball dynasty” put forth in Post-Dispatch. True dynasties should be rare.

So with the simple formula, we get the following professional football teams qualifying for the title of “dynasty”:

• 1921-24 Canton/Cleveland Bulldogs, 0.750 Domination Level
• 1927-32 Green Bay Packers, 0.666 DL
• 1936-39 Green Bay Packers, 0.625 DL
• 1940-46 Chicago Bears, 0.642 DL
• 1951-57 Cleveland Browns, 0.642 DL
• 1964-67 Green Bay Packers, 0.750 DL
• 1971-74 Miami Dolphins, 0.625 DL
• 1974-1979 Pittsburgh Steelers, 0.666 DL
• 1993-1996 Dallas Cowboys, 0.750 DL
• 2000-2003 New England Patriots, 0.750 DL
• 2014-2018 New England Patriots, 0.700 DL
• 2019-2022 Kansas City Chiefs, 0.625 DL

Not in agreement.

The Cowboys dominated from 1970 to 1979. Sure the Steelers won more superbowls, but the cowboys played in more and in more championship games. In the Steelers off years, they had several very mediocre records.

 

[Couchpotato]

The chiefs are the team to beat in the AFC, but I think Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson are both better than Mahomes. Kelce is also washed up.

If they were they would have beaten him by now. Lamar for sure has had a much better roster than either Mahomes or Allen.

 

[Couchpotato]

Do the Chiefs have girlie boy homo cheerleaders as msny NFL teams do now?

If so who cares if they win the Super Bowl?

Why do you care about the cheerleaders?

 

[Rocko]

If they were they would have beaten him by now. Lamar for sure has had a much better roster than either Mahomes or Allen.

Championships are a team award. Just because the chiefs eliminated Buffalo that doesn’t mean Mahomes is better than Josh Allen. Also Lamar is a beast. I’d take him over mahomes ten out of ten times.

 

[Mac-7]

Why do you care about the cheerleaders?

I like girls, not prissy girlie boys

 

[Couchpotato]

I girls, not prissy girlie boys

That doesn’t actually answer the question.

 

[Couchpotato]

Championships are a team award. Just because the chiefs eliminated Buffalo that doesn’t mean Mahomes is better than Josh Allen. Also Lamar is a beast. I’d take him over mahomes ten out of ten times.

Lamar has had the better roster for the last 3-4 years now. How many PO wins does he have? Fewer than Mahomes has SBs I think. The only people who care about their QB being the “best” are the fans of teams not winning SBs.

 

[citygator]

Not in agreement.

The Cowboys dominated from 1970 to 1979. Sure the Steelers won more superbowls, but the cowboys played in more and in more championship games. In the Steelers off years, they had several very mediocre records.

If you dont think the steelers were the dynasty in the 70's I think that puts you on an island. Just an opinion.

 

[Couchpotato]

Not in agreement.

The Cowboys dominated from 1970 to 1979. Sure the Steelers won more superbowls, but the cowboys played in more and in more championship games. In the Steelers off years, they had several very mediocre records.

Do what the goal of the season is for every team? Hint it's not to "go to the SB".

 

[HikerGuy83]

If you dont think the steelers were the dynasty in the 70's I think that puts you on an island. Just an opinion.

I get it.

You can't respond to the argument so you say something like this ^^^^.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Do what the goal of the season is for every team? Hint it's not to "go to the SB".

You'll have to explain to me how this post has anything to do with what I posted.

Looking forward to it.

 

[Couchpotato]

You'll have to explain to me how this post has anything to do with what I posted.

Looking forward to it.

In the 70's the Cowboys went to 5 SB's losing 3 times. Twice to the team you are saying they were more dominant than. There was a 6 year gap between them winning. Dallas went to 7 winning 5.

Pittsburgh went to 4 wining all 4. Twice going back to back. Done in just 6 years. The Steelers went to 6 AFC champ games winnning 4. The Steelers were clearly the dominant team in that decade.

The point of the season is the win the SB. Not to get to it. That the Cowboys got to one more SB is irrelevant seeing as they won 2 fewer losing to the Steelers.


To sum up.

Dallas has 1 more Conf Champ game appearance and 1 more win.

Pittsburgh has 2 more SB wins and 2 head to head wins over Dallas in the SB.

But Dallas was the dominant team in the 70's and not the Steelers.

Do I have that right?

 

[citygator]

I get it.

You can't respond to the argument so you say something like this ^^^^.

Its an opinion as I stated clearly but I did attach a bit of science above (dynasty formula) and I'd dare you to find a ranking that doesnt have the Steelers as the top 1, 2 or 3 dynasty of all time.

Ranking NFL's greatest dynasties of past six decades: Have Chiefs done enough to pass 1990s Cowboys?

Find out where the modern day Chiefs rank among history's other dynasties

www.cbssports.com

Ranking the 10 Greatest Dynasties in NFL History

Are the current Kansas City Chiefs already one of the greatest dynasties in NFL history?

www.givemesport.com

 

[HikerGuy83]

In the 70's the Cowboys went to 5 SB's losing 3 times. Twice to the team you are saying they were more dominant than. There was a 6 year gap between them winning. Dallas went to 7 winning 5.

Pittsburgh went to 4 wining all 4. Twice going back to back. Done in just 6 years. The Steelers went to 6 AFC champ games winnning 4. The Steelers were clearly the dominant team in that decade.

The point of the season is the win the SB. Not to get to it. That the Cowboys got to one more SB is irrelevant seeing as they won 2 fewer losing to the Steelers.


To sum up.

Dallas has 1 more Conf Champ game appearance and 1 more win.

Pittsburgh has 2 more SB wins and 2 head to head wins over Dallas in the SB.

But Dallas was the dominant team in the 70's and not the Steelers.

Do I have that right?

The steelers first two seasons in the 70's were LOSING seasons. Sign of dominant team. The Cowboys were in the

In the 70's the Cowboys went to 5 SB's losing 3 times. Twice to the team you are saying they were more dominant than. There was a 6 year gap between them winning. Dallas went to 7 winning 5.

Pittsburgh went to 4 wining all 4. Twice going back to back. Done in just 6 years. The Steelers went to 6 AFC champ games winnning 4. The Steelers were clearly the dominant team in that decade.

The point of the season is the win the SB. Not to get to it. That the Cowboys got to one more SB is irrelevant seeing as they won 2 fewer losing to the Steelers.


To sum up.

Dallas has 1 more Conf Champ game appearance and 1 more win.

Pittsburgh has 2 more SB wins and 2 head to head wins over Dallas in the SB.

But Dallas was the dominant team in the 70's and not the Steelers.

Do I have that right?

You got that right.

The Steelers don't show up until 1974.

The Cowboys were in the 71 and 72 superbowls. They were also in the 79 superbowl.

The steelers had losing seasons in 70 and 71. The Cowboys were in the playoffs in 70. They won the NFL in 7,1 losing to the Colts.

They won SB 72.

They lost to the Redskins in 73 NFC championship game.

The Steelers hadn't even come onto the radar yet (unless you count the immaculate reception).

Point being that the Cowboys were in more superbowls, more conference championship games, were in the playoffs every year of the decade.

So....ya.....you got that right.

 

[citygator]

The steelers first two seasons in the 70's were LOSING seasons. Sign of dominant team. The Cowboys were in the

You got that right.

The Steelers don't show up until 1974.

The Cowboys were in the 71 and 72 superbowls. They were also in the 79 superbowl.

The steelers had losing seasons in 70 and 71. The Cowboys were in the playoffs in 70. They won the NFL in 7,1 losing to the Colts.

They won SB 72.

They lost to the Redskins in 73 NFC championship game.

The Steelers hadn't even come onto the radar yet (unless you count the immaculate reception).

Point being that the Cowboys were in more superbowls, more conference championship games, were in the playoffs every year of the decade.

So....ya.....you got that right.

Some Dynasties are only 3 or 4 years so I dont think the measure of a full decade is important which your argument rests on.

During the years the Steelers were dominating they were, you know, dominant. Being good for a period of time isnt a dynasty. That is just consistency. The Broncos famously appeared in 5 of 12 superbowls 1987-1999 and of course you know why no one calls them a dynasty.

 

[Couchpotato]

The steelers first two seasons in the 70's were LOSING seasons. Sign of dominant team. The Cowboys were in the

You got that right.

The Steelers don't show up until 1974.

The Cowboys were in the 71 and 72 superbowls. They were also in the 79 superbowl.

The steelers had losing seasons in 70 and 71. The Cowboys were in the playoffs in 70. They won the NFL in 7,1 losing to the Colts.

They won SB 72.

They lost to the Redskins in 73 NFC championship game.

The Steelers hadn't even come onto the radar yet (unless you count the immaculate reception).

Point being that the Cowboys were in more superbowls, more conference championship games, were in the playoffs every year of the decade.

So....ya.....you got that right.

1 more SB and 1 more NFC championship game. They lost 3 more SB's than the Steelers. The Steelers were the best team in the NFL 40% of the decade. You must be a Dallas fan. Only their delusional fanbase could believe they were a Dynasty in the 70's and the Steelers werent.

 

[22lcidw]

1 more SB and 1 more NFC championship game. They lost 3 more SB's than the Steelers. The Steelers were the best team in the NFL 40% of the decade. You must be a Dallas fan. Only their delusional fanbase could believe they were a Dynasty in the 70's and the Steelers werent.

They are still promoted as "America's Team" that has not gotten to even an NFC championship game in 30 years. Tey are not deserved to be called that.