The Kansas City Chiefs And The Elites

by Chiefs

For a long time now most of us have bought into the perception that the NFL could be viewed through the lens of parity: every teams having an equal opportunity to beat any other team on any given Sunday. At least this is the idea that’s echoed everywhere.

The league may be better understood as a caste system than as an equal opportunity employer, when it comes to defining a winning organization, or one that’s not.

Some use the parity method as a microscope to focus on the chance of winning a specific game. But, does that really mean every team in the NFL is equal? Not really. There could be some advantages to using a wider overall picture of each team, like a Hubble telescope, to gain a more accurate picture of the NFL as it spans the decades.

Use the Hubble approach, and you may be able to see the issues more clearly. Including the Chiefs.

As in any social structure, such as a caste system, it includes upper, middle and lower-classes. There, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  It’s not all that different than in the NFL. But, how are these “classes” defined in the NFL? By their dominance. And, their attitude is born of that dominance over an extended period of time.

Perhaps this is just another way to say, I personally don’t believe we have parity. However, I just don’t think the concept of parity works.

The perception of parity is more of a media trend than sound reasoning. However, if enough people go around saying, “all teams are equal, all teams are equal”, then eventually people are going to believe it.

Even if it’s not true.

Roger Goodell wants fans to believe that their team can win. But, just saying it doesn’t make it true.

So, they peddle parity.

Plus, the NFL has made many alterations to the way they do business over the years to give the fans the idea that each team has a fair chance to make it to the playoffs and win a Super Bowl each year. Now ask yourself if you really think that one is true, and if you do, then you may have been paying more attention to the beer commercial than the game itself.

If you’ve ever been to a sports bar in one of our countries fair cities, you will find a preponderance of Steelers fans, Cowboys fans and Packers fans there a-hoopin’ and a-hollerin’. Except for the cheesy cheese heads, the Steelers and the Cowboys fans are by far the most obnoxious. I’m not even going to address the Raider’s fans, because it’s been too long since they were winners for me to take them seriously. But, that’s essentially the point. If you have winning on your side then you have the clout to back up your words, and there is no shutting you up. The Cowboys and the Steelers have been to enough Super Bowls for me to be envious.

As a Chiefs fan, knowing that we have won the sum total of 3 playoff games in the past 41 years gets me very little leverage at the upper-class feast of the league’s elitists.

In the Super Bowl era, the following shows the total number of teams that have played in a playoff game:

1967 to 1969 =  3 games x 3 years = 9 total games
1970 to 1978 = 7 games x 8 years = 56 total games
1979 to 1990 =  9 games x 11 years = 88 total games
1990 to 2010 =11 games x 20 years = 220 total games

That’s 364 playoff winners since 1970.

It gives the Chiefs total number of playoff  wins since 1970, perspective. A less than 1% playoff victory rate.

This is not to speculate on how the Kansas City Chiefs became one of he leagues lower-class teams, it’s just to say that they often have been.

Have been. Past tense.

Teams don’t necessarily stay in one class, or the other, from decade to decade.

The Pittsburgh Steelers were the dominant team of the 1970s and still good into the early 80s. However, from 1984 to 1991 they were 53-58. Hardly even middle-class numbers.

Those embarrassing numbers pretty much parallel the Dallas Cowboys during that time period (from 1984-1990 they were 44-67). Yes, the Cowboys were the dominant team of the early nineties but, they’ve only had 1 playoff victory now in the past 15 seasons.

The New England Patriots have had “down” and “up” decades too and pretty much in that order. From 1967 to 1995 they had only 3 playoff wins. In the past 15 years they have become the AFC standard and model citizen. Upper-class and elite.

Of course, there are teams who have lived in the ghetto’s of the league for a long time too. Essentially, when one team dominates, another team is displaced. It’s a reality that competition dictates.

Currently, there are a handful of teams who are dominating Super Bowl berths. Look at the teams who have been to the big game and the total number of times they’ve been there:

1.     Steelers- 8
2.     Cowboys- 8
3.     Patriots- 6
4.     Packers- 5
5.     Raiders- 5
6.     Broncos- 5
7.     Redskins- 5
8.     49ers- 5
9.     Dolphins- 5
10.   Colts- 4
11.   Giants- 4
12.   Bills- 4
13.   Vikings- 4
14.   Rams- 3

There have been 45 Super Bowls, totaling 90 Super Bowl teams involved. Mathematically, each of the league’s 32 teams could, perhaps, if not irrationally, expect to reach the Super Bowl 3 times by now. Only 40% of the teams in the NFL have done that.

The top nine teams on this list have taken 52 out of 90 total Super Bowl berths.  Those nine teams, approximately 30% of the teams in the league, have tied up 60% of all Super Bowl berths.

In other words, for those on the outside of this select group, which is 70% of the league, there is only a 40% chance that any of the 70%, are going to make it to the big game.

Would you call that parity? It’s more like preferred company, or elitism.

To be elite, may be getting a negative response from some who read this but, that is not the intended meaning here.

“…an elite is distinguished by the mastery of a particular skill, such as skateboarding or mathematics, and sometimes by past accomplishments; but, the much more common sense of the term today is to refer to a group of people who have power.” ~ Kragen Sitaker

Sitaker goes on to explain that the elite are those who have reached their position by some intrinsic merit, also known as meritocracy.

Now, this is exciting for me because I’m observing upward trends in all aspects of the Chiefs organization and that leads me to believe they are in the burgeoning stages of moving to the upper-echelon of the NFL, because they merit it.

Like the old Merrill Lynch commercial used to say, “We make money the old fashioned way, we earn it.”

Four Chiefs players have been noticed as elite by their peers during this off season. We see a rise in the number of Chiefs players performing at a high level, pushing the team and raising expectations exponentially.

Just as the Steelers, Cowboys and Pats have all experienced their lean years, so have the Chiefs. It’s not by the Chiefs having suffered through decades of playoff famine that makes them ready to sit at the President’s table. But, it’s the dues they are paying that signal the beginning of a new era at Arrowhead.

Some may be thinking… yeah, the era of Thomas Jones breaking the thumb of our first round choice. Exactly. That’s really a good example of the increased pressure that the team is experiencing. These teammates have been “burned by fire, and all our pleasant places have become ruins.” This is not like Percy Snow going down on a moped.

This is not about a sense of entitlement either but, it is about a sense of earning. The organizational structure is now set up that way.

Coach Haley is not allowing a stone to go unturned when it comes to training, preparation or motivation of the factions. If it disturbs you that differing members of the Chiefs may not be cuddly and cozy with each other, don’t let it bother you. It is a sign, and a good one. Some of you may not be old enough to recall but, Terry Bradshaw didn’t have an easy path to becoming a starter. In fact, neither did Roger Staubach nor Len Dawson (drafted by the Steelers traded to Cleveland and released by the Browns). Burned by fire….

What does this have to do with becoming elite? That’s exactly how those great teams became elite. By fire! Through hard work and though conflict. No, it is not controversy alone that makes a team great, however…

“Poverty is a veil that obscures the face of greatness.”

~Khalil Gibran

The Chiefs have been poor and the Chiefs are poor no more. I am so, so enjoying watching them slowly pull the mask away.

I see where the Chiefs are going. I see that the Chiefs are on the verge. I can see that they’re on the verge of becoming… elite.

And, I’m sure that this is their goal. To become elite.

Parity is about winning one solitary game. Being elite is about an encompassing vision for the entire Chief’s Nation that will last for years upon butt kicking years.

Let the elite butt kickings commence.

 

Never miss a chance to get your fix! Follow Arrowhead Addict on Twitter and be sure to like our Facebook page.

Comments
Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Nick... I don't think the issue is whether or not a team "can" become elite but, whether or not they have... and tracking the league over a long period of time... the data suggests that they all have not. In fact, a high enough percentage never have so as to suggest that parity is never a possibility for them. Now that, tells me there is no parity. So, parity doesn't work as a way to look at the league but, saying the teams have been operating like a caste system... or a system of elites/not elites... seems more accurate... at least semantically. @Nick Rodgers

Well written article. I love it when a writer will back up their words with facts. Proves you've done your research and due dillegence.

It might be more important to us are the Chiefs joining the elite? We will agree the team is a whole lot better than it was. So we are better than the bottomfeeders, losers year in, year out. But are we joining the elite or have we reached a level and that is it? Free agents filled a couple of holes, draft picks may help (eventually) but is that enough? I point to the Jets, made moves to stay close to NE, in the playoffs regularily, they make moves to get them deeper in the playoffs, not sure the Chiefs moves are designed to get us to the playoffs, better but the playoff? it seems to me the Chiefs have gone from low 20s to the 16s but seem to be searching for a way to move into the 10s and not there yet.

Chiefs have enjoyed consistently high crowds even though they have the sixth smallest media market in the league. They have the second highest attendance average over the past ten years and all the Chiefs games draw big crowds regardless of the team’s performance. That's why I have to purchase my Kansas City Chiefs tickets @ http://www.chiefstickets.org!

Chiefs have enjoyed consistently high crowds even though they have the sixth smallest media market in the league. They have the second highest attendance average over the past ten years and all the Chiefs games draw big crowds regardless of the team’s performance. That's why I have to purchase my <a href="http://www.chiefstickets.org">Kansas City Chiefs tickets</a> as early as now!

I see where your argument goes, but I feel that the idea that "a team can become elite" means there is parity. If the system didn't have parity then small markets would have no shot at having an elite team. Everyone is on a level playing field, and that's how the system is set up now. Whether or not there are smart people running a team that perennially make it win or lose does not have anything to do with the way the league is set up, just with how well people manage their equal part of the business. The only piecethings that can skew this system away from allowing for parity is if a team has enough money to hire the best coaches and front offices because those salaries are not monitored like team payroll, and the "everybody wants to play for a winning team" mentality that will bring the elite teams a player for less money than other teams may be offering simply because they want a better shot at winning a Super Bowl. Still a well done piece, and fun to read. It maybe a little early to start saying the Chiefs are on their way to being elite, especially with their schedule this year, but I love the optimism and I am hoping that we are headed that direction myself.

Good point about Tamba... of JC. Nail on the head. @sidibeke

Good stuff. I like your take on the Baldwin-Jones deal, too. Nothing wrong with some intensity and competition in the preseason locker room. Not that I like having our 1st round draft pick out, or that it was a controversial figure who was on the other end (if it was Baldwin and Tamba or even JC--the chiefs savior--himself, it's a very different discussion), but these guys are clearly there to win. And they BELIEVE they can.

You cite an excellent example in referring to the Chiefs of the early 2000s. They surely were elite on offense. However, they never were even close to elite on defense, in the front office, in the scouting department... plus the fact that Lamar was aging and ill and less involved than in healthy years. To be elite a team must have skills and talent in many arenas of an organizational structure. Now, I believe the Chiefs have those skilled people and talented individuals in place. So.... if Cassel were to fail... I now believe we'll be fine. If JC were to fail... we'll be fine. The strength of an elite team is the depth of an organization on an off the field. The Chiefs are working on the "on-field" depth. Organizationally I think we're already there. That....... excites me. I just hope we can build at ILB... this season... with Siler going down.@ipriest31

@laddiemorseI'm not sure I understand what argument has been taken up, to be honest with you. I simply meant to suggest that parity is a relatively modern concept - post 1994, at the least, and that comparing playoff berths and wins and championships in the SUperbowl Era is statistically misleading. Its like measuring the success of airbags in cars using number of injuries before airbags were introduced - it is, ipso facto, irrelevant how many playoffs the Chiefs have been in in 41 years in a discussion of parity's impact on the Chiefs. How many have the Chiefs been in since 1994 is the only real question.That said, large aspects of the game now are beyond the control of individual teams. Players who outplay their contracts are notable for taking 'home-town discounts' because the system is designed to encourage the free flow of talented veterans towards teams with more cap space (and/or more interest in acquiring good talent).The skills it takes to be good and good for a long time now are therefore the ability to draft good players, but then to keep them by managing the salary cap (Joe Hayden anyone?). Over time, no team can overcome the forces of the market and retain all of their talent, and must therefore begin the process anew with young, fresh players from the draft and prudent free agent acquisitions.Even the Chiefs recent history (post 1994) shows this - our vaunted offense with Green, Holmes, Gonzalez and a brilliant O-Line was eventually dismantled by time and the market, and the Chiefs began a period in the wilderness. It has taken time, but through the cap, draft and some acquisitions the Chiefs have found a path which seems to lead out of the wilderness.

Lyle... thanks for the kind words. Appreciate it. @LyleGraversen

That...... would probably be a lot more interesting! I just get an idea... and follow the yellow brick road of notions. Oh well, I just hope there's still a place for the more mundane perspective. @Arowhead_Addict

You're making my argument for me. It's a bit of a semantic adjustment for us to accept that good teams (elite) are good because they have gained "mastery over a particular set of skills" which is their power. You citing... "poor" drafting, "poor" salary cap manipulation and "bad" coaching... is exactly what I'm referring to. It's an NFL fan's form of "ethnocentrism." This is when you use your own culture to rate another culture, to find them inferior. It makes your own culture into "the" yardstick with which to measure all of the other cultures as good... bad... high... low... or whatever. Whether this is a good thing or bad thing... I'm not judging that... I'm just saying that this... shifting levels of elitism... is what's really happening. It's a sociological phenomena. However, parity, is some sports writer's fish-story that too many have swallowed... so easily morphing into sushi lovers. @ipriest31

Parity does not mean every chance has an equal chance of winning every game, or even every season. This is a straw man argument.It means that the structural framework of the league is such that, over time, teams will tend to remain competitive. The salary cap is the most salient aspect of that framework and was only brought in in 1994 - I would urge the author to re-examine his numbers using the years since 1994.Having said that, no amount of salary cap or draft position or strength of schedule considerations will overcome consistently poor drafting, consistently poor manipulation of the salary cap or consistently bad coaching.Every time a fan points to a player and shouts 'bust', he also points to a team that has wasted part of its seasonal salary allowance on a bench-warmer. This is where good and bad teams separate, by making every dollar of their salary allowance work for them towards winning.Parity was never meant to make every team equal all the time, or even from time to time - it was designed to restrain big and successful teams from promoting and improving themselves purely on the basis of that size or success. For the most part, the big bad teams that have kept on winning since 1994 have been the ones who have worked the draft like an artform (Belichick) and worked the salary cap well (Tannenbaum/ NY Jets). Free agent spending has clearly NOT helped teams like the 49ers, the Redskins, et al. The trick to long term success is the draft and the salary cap - it is no coincidence that Haley and Pioli are products of the Belichick system and that the Chiefs are now building depth and talent on the roster.

Nice piece. I agree that not all teams are equal. As long as the game is ciached and played by humans they never will be. There are too many variables, physical skill, attitude, etc. I hate racing but it's a good example here. All the cars must fit into certain specs so they are all pretty much the same. You can't do that with people. The NFL has the 1500 greatest football players in the world but as long as there are elite players such as say Tom Brady that team will be better than a team with Matt Lienart

Agreed. Ladner and Victor often get the shaft in the comment department. We love controversy here at AA so the threads where we can argue tend to be the hottest. I encourage more comments in the brilliantly written pieces as well people. Ladner, perhaps if you just writer "Charles should start over Jones" at the end of all your articles you'd get more love in the comments. That or just write "Big Matt vs. Trapped In Donkey Land: Go"

VERY well done piece Ladner. I sometimes don't know what to say in the comments of your pieces because I usually agree with you. We either see things very similar or you're such a good writer that you've usually swayed me by the end of the piece. Keep up the good work.

@tm1946 My only argument with that would be which team has more elite players? I think I would put Charles, Bowe, Hali, Berry, and Flowers up against their best five players (take your pick from Revis, Sanchez, Holmes, Scott, Harris, Chromartie, and Mangold). I think at this point we just need to build some depth (especially on the offensive and defensive lines) and let the young guys keep developing.

There are ways to become elite and there are ways. The Jets went one and the Chiefs went another. Who is right? The Jets spend money and the Chiefs look for bargains. The Jets take chances in drafts and the Chief, up until this year, are all about the safe choice. The Jets seem to be about being in the playoffs and the Chiefs seem to be about building blocks for years of dominance. The Jets take chances and the Chiefs, again until this year, have been about character and the right 53. Who is right? Who gets to the superbowl first? The Jets seem to be among the elite and the Chiefs are still looking for talent. Of course that is my view, not sure the Jets can sustain anything but not sure the Chiefs will ever be ready for the final push, either.

hannzo24 125 pts

Well written article. I love it when a writer will back up their words with facts. Proves you've done your research and due dillegence.

tm1946 183 pts

It might be more important to us are the Chiefs joining the elite? We will agree the team is a whole lot better than it was. So we are better than the bottomfeeders, losers year in, year out. But are we joining the elite or have we reached a level and that is it? Free agents filled a couple of holes, draft picks may help (eventually) but is that enough? I point to the Jets, made moves to stay close to NE, in the playoffs regularily, they make moves to get them deeper in the playoffs, not sure the Chiefs moves are designed to get us to the playoffs, better but the playoff? it seems to me the Chiefs have gone from low 20s to the 16s but seem to be searching for a way to move into the 10s and not there yet.

Nick Rodgers 62 pts

I see where your argument goes, but I feel that the idea that "a team can become elite" means there is parity. If the system didn't have parity then small markets would have no shot at having an elite team. Everyone is on a level playing field, and that's how the system is set up now. Whether or not there are smart people running a team that perennially make it win or lose does not have anything to do with the way the league is set up, just with how well people manage their equal part of the business.

The only piecethings that can skew this system away from allowing for parity is if a team has enough money to hire the best coaches and front offices because those salaries are not monitored like team payroll, and the "everybody wants to play for a winning team" mentality that will bring the elite teams a player for less money than other teams may be offering simply because they want a better shot at winning a Super Bowl.

Still a well done piece, and fun to read. It maybe a little early to start saying the Chiefs are on their way to being elite, especially with their schedule this year, but I love the optimism and I am hoping that we are headed that direction myself.

laddiemorse 205 pts

Nick... I don't think the issue is whether or not a team "can" become elite but, whether or not they have... and tracking the league over a long period of time... the data suggests that they all have not. In fact, a high enough percentage never have so as to suggest that parity is never a possibility for them. Now that, tells me there is no parity. So, parity doesn't work as a way to look at the league but, saying the teams have been operating like a caste system... or a system of elites/not elites... seems more accurate... at least semantically. Nick Rodgers

sidibeke 259 pts

Good stuff. I like your take on the Baldwin-Jones deal, too. Nothing wrong with some intensity and competition in the preseason locker room. Not that I like having our 1st round draft pick out, or that it was a controversial figure who was on the other end (if it was Baldwin and Tamba or even JC--the chiefs savior--himself, it's a very different discussion), but these guys are clearly there to win. And they BELIEVE they can.

laddiemorse 205 pts

Good point about Tamba... of JC. Nail on the head. sidibeke

ipriest31 5 pts

Parity does not mean every chance has an equal chance of winning every game, or even every season. This is a straw man argument.It means that the structural framework of the league is such that, over time, teams will tend to remain competitive. The salary cap is the most salient aspect of that framework and was only brought in in 1994 - I would urge the author to re-examine his numbers using the years since 1994.Having said that, no amount of salary cap or draft position or strength of schedule considerations will overcome consistently poor drafting, consistently poor manipulation of the salary cap or consistently bad coaching.Every time a fan points to a player and shouts 'bust', he also points to a team that has wasted part of its seasonal salary allowance on a bench-warmer. This is where good and bad teams separate, by making every dollar of their salary allowance work for them towards winning.Parity was never meant to make every team equal all the time, or even from time to time - it was designed to restrain big and successful teams from promoting and improving themselves purely on the basis of that size or success. For the most part, the big bad teams that have kept on winning since 1994 have been the ones who have worked the draft like an artform (Belichick) and worked the salary cap well (Tannenbaum/ NY Jets). Free agent spending has clearly NOT helped teams like the 49ers, the Redskins, et al. The trick to long term success is the draft and the salary cap - it is no coincidence that Haley and Pioli are products of the Belichick system and that the Chiefs are now building depth and talent on the roster.

laddiemorse 205 pts

You're making my argument for me. It's a bit of a semantic adjustment for us to accept that good teams (elite) are good because they have gained "mastery over a particular set of skills" which is their power. You citing... "poor" drafting, "poor" salary cap manipulation and "bad" coaching... is exactly what I'm referring to. It's an NFL fan's form of "ethnocentrism." This is when you use your own culture to rate another culture, to find them inferior. It makes your own culture into "the" yardstick with which to measure all of the other cultures as good... bad... high... low... or whatever. Whether this is a good thing or bad thing... I'm not judging that... I'm just saying that this... shifting levels of elitism... is what's really happening. It's a sociological phenomena. However, parity, is some sports writer's fish-story that too many have swallowed... so easily morphing into sushi lovers. ipriest31

ipriest31 5 pts

laddiemorseI'm not sure I understand what argument has been taken up, to be honest with you. I simply meant to suggest that parity is a relatively modern concept - post 1994, at the least, and that comparing playoff berths and wins and championships in the SUperbowl Era is statistically misleading. Its like measuring the success of airbags in cars using number of injuries before airbags were introduced - it is, ipso facto, irrelevant how many playoffs the Chiefs have been in in 41 years in a discussion of parity's impact on the Chiefs. How many have the Chiefs been in since 1994 is the only real question.That said, large aspects of the game now are beyond the control of individual teams. Players who outplay their contracts are notable for taking 'home-town discounts' because the system is designed to encourage the free flow of talented veterans towards teams with more cap space (and/or more interest in acquiring good talent).The skills it takes to be good and good for a long time now are therefore the ability to draft good players, but then to keep them by managing the salary cap (Joe Hayden anyone?). Over time, no team can overcome the forces of the market and retain all of their talent, and must therefore begin the process anew with young, fresh players from the draft and prudent free agent acquisitions.Even the Chiefs recent history (post 1994) shows this - our vaunted offense with Green, Holmes, Gonzalez and a brilliant O-Line was eventually dismantled by time and the market, and the Chiefs began a period in the wilderness. It has taken time, but through the cap, draft and some acquisitions the Chiefs have found a path which seems to lead out of the wilderness.

laddiemorse 205 pts

You cite an excellent example in referring to the Chiefs of the early 2000s. They surely were elite on offense. However, they never were even close to elite on defense, in the front office, in the scouting department... plus the fact that Lamar was aging and ill and less involved than in healthy years. To be elite a team must have skills and talent in many arenas of an organizational structure. Now, I believe the Chiefs have those skilled people and talented individuals in place. So.... if Cassel were to fail... I now believe we'll be fine. If JC were to fail... we'll be fine. The strength of an elite team is the depth of an organization on an off the field. The Chiefs are working on the "on-field" depth. Organizationally I think we're already there. That....... excites me. I just hope we can build at ILB... this season... with Siler going down.ipriest31

big chief 150 pts

Nice piece. I agree that not all teams are equal. As long as the game is ciached and played by humans they never will be. There are too many variables, physical skill, attitude, etc. I hate racing but it's a good example here. All the cars must fit into certain specs so they are all pretty much the same. You can't do that with people. The NFL has the 1500 greatest football players in the world but as long as there are elite players such as say Tom Brady that team will be better than a team with Matt Lienart

LyleGraversen 312 pts

VERY well done piece Ladner. I sometimes don't know what to say in the comments of your pieces because I usually agree with you. We either see things very similar or you're such a good writer that you've usually swayed me by the end of the piece. Keep up the good work.

Arowhead_Addict 491 pts

Agreed. Ladner and Victor often get the shaft in the comment department. We love controversy here at AA so the threads where we can argue tend to be the hottest.

I encourage more comments in the brilliantly written pieces as well people.

Ladner, perhaps if you just writer "Charles should start over Jones" at the end of all your articles you'd get more love in the comments.

That or just write "Big Matt vs. Trapped In Donkey Land: Go"

laddiemorse 205 pts

That...... would probably be a lot more interesting! I just get an idea... and follow the yellow brick road of notions. Oh well, I just hope there's still a place for the more mundane perspective. Arowhead_Addict

laddiemorse 205 pts

Lyle... thanks for the kind words. Appreciate it. LyleGraversen

tm1946 183 pts

There are ways to become elite and there are ways. The Jets went one and the Chiefs went another. Who is right? The Jets spend money and the Chiefs look for bargains. The Jets take chances in drafts and the Chief, up until this year, are all about the safe choice. The Jets seem to be about being in the playoffs and the Chiefs seem to be about building blocks for years of dominance. The Jets take chances and the Chiefs, again until this year, have been about character and the right 53.

Who is right? Who gets to the superbowl first? The Jets seem to be among the elite and the Chiefs are still looking for talent. Of course that is my view, not sure the Jets can sustain anything but not sure the Chiefs will ever be ready for the final push, either.

LyleGraversen 312 pts

tm1946 My only argument with that would be which team has more elite players? I think I would put Charles, Bowe, Hali, Berry, and Flowers up against their best five players (take your pick from Revis, Sanchez, Holmes, Scott, Harris, Chromartie, and Mangold). I think at this point we just need to build some depth (especially on the offensive and defensive lines) and let the young guys keep developing.