PDA

View Full Version : "Why we need a new coach in '05"


shaneo69
11-15-2004, 08:54 AM
I really think DV has gotten to the point where he can't be objective enough when it comes to evaluating these players and asst. coaches in order to make the necessary changes for '05.

Since the Vermiel era started, the Chiefs have rarely been the highest bidder when shopping for free agents. Instead, Vermiel has relied on his "family atmosphere" approach to appeal to the potential signees. But this offseason, if he's still here, he'll be a lame duck coach that UFA's know will not be back in '06. This will be a major obstacle in trying to woo free agents.

For fans, and the organization as a whole, the lame duck season spells danger because anyone that we sign to big bucks may not fit in with the new coach coming in '06. So we might end up wasting cap money on guys who don't fit the new ('06) scheme.

Finally, I think it's necessary for a new coach for '05 to come in from the outside to purge our roster of the guys who have sucked for 3-4 years now. We cannot be stuck with guys like Woods, Wesley, Warfield, Bartee, McCleon, Battle, Holliday, Hicks, Sims, etc. just because they're nice guys, or because they were high draft picks by the current staff, or because they were prize free agent signings by the current staff. We need someone who will study tape and objectively analyze our roster, and make the necessary changes, even if it means putting us in a bad cap situation for a year.

Brock
11-15-2004, 08:56 AM
who's Peterson going to hire? Gunther?

King_Chief_Fan
11-15-2004, 08:57 AM
who's Peterson going to hire? Gunther?

obviously not, but Gunther's overall record compared to DV % wise doesn't show much difference.

Tuckdaddy
11-15-2004, 08:59 AM
The only thing that wooos FA's is money. That's why we didn't get Vincent or Winfield. Money was better else where. Put up the bucks and we have the FA's we need.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 08:59 AM
who's Peterson going to hire? Gunther?
Knowing Peterson, Wannestadt is the first choice. :p

TEX
11-15-2004, 09:01 AM
Come to think of it, this season does kind of resemble DV's last season in Philly. :hmmm:

TEX
11-15-2004, 09:02 AM
Knowing Peterson, Wannestadt is the first choice. :p


REP! :clap: ROFL

Dr. Facebook Fever
11-15-2004, 09:03 AM
who's Peterson going to hire? Gunther?
I vote for "anybody but Dick."

Dr. Facebook Fever
11-15-2004, 09:03 AM
REP! :clap: ROFL
I wouldn't laugh too hard...........

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 09:07 AM
I vote for "anybody but Dick."
Sounds like an old girlfriend I used to date. :p

KCTitus
11-15-2004, 09:09 AM
A 'come from the outside' strategy would require CP resigning as well.

Both are under contract through '05...at this point, Im guessing they both leave after '05.

Dr. Facebook Fever
11-15-2004, 09:12 AM
Sounds like an old girlfriend I used to date. :p
ROFL

shaneo69
11-15-2004, 09:13 AM
who's Peterson going to hire? Gunther?

No, like I said, we need to go outside the organization for someone who will objectively evaluate our current team. Gunther put us in a hole by endorsing the signings of Hicks, Wesley, Bartee, and Woods.

My choice, based on the weak crop of current assistant coaches in the league, would probably be Bob Stoops. I've been pretty sick of people pimping him for the past 3-4 years, but he's won me over.

morphius
11-15-2004, 09:16 AM
This just scares me, but Martz did something intelligent, basically you guys keep screwing it up in game time so much that we are going to play a scrimage against ourselves this week. Then they came out and won the game.

Brock
11-15-2004, 09:17 AM
No, like I said, we need to go outside the organization for someone who will objectively evaluate our current team. Gunther put us in a hole by endorsing the signings of Hicks, Wesley, Bartee, and Woods.

My choice, based on the weak crop of current assistant coaches in the league, would probably be Bob Stoops. I've been pretty sick of people pimping him for the past 3-4 years, but he's won me over.

I think Stoops probably has rejected better deals than anything Peterson would offer. I think we'd probably better get used to the idea of Al Saunders being the next coach. Look on the bright side, he probably comes cheap.

shaneo69
11-15-2004, 09:27 AM
A 'come from the outside' strategy would require CP resigning as well.

Both are under contract through '05...at this point, Im guessing they both leave after '05.

Yeah, you're probably right. I'm sure a new head coach picked by CP will be expected to eventually move Larry Johnson into the starting lineup.

I find it difficult to solely blame CP for draft failures and free agent busts, because I think the head coach has a lot of say in those matters. But I think CP can be blamed for the Grbac over Gannon decision. And we could be looking at that again if Blaylock is allowed to leave to make room for LJ.

In fact, now that I think about it, this decision could really have an impact on the Vermeil-Peterson relationship. I'm sure DV will be pushing to re-sign Blaylock, while Peterson may decide not to really try to keep him here. If Vermiel senses a lack of urgency on CP's part, we may see sparks fly.

2bikemike
11-15-2004, 09:34 AM
I think there come a time in every modern day NFL coaches tenure where his message is just not getting across anymore and the squad just is not buying into his rah rah rah speeches.

I think DV may be at this point. It happened with Marty as well. When this happens the team becomes very undiciplined. See Marty's exit for a reference.

How Bill Cowher has managed in Pittsburgh for so long is beyond me.

BigRedChief
11-15-2004, 09:38 AM
Fu$k that. I don't want King Carl making any more decisions for my football team. Give me Pioli and get out of the way and let him do the voodoo that he does so well.

KCTitus
11-15-2004, 09:39 AM
I find it difficult to solely blame CP for draft failures and free agent busts, because I think the head coach has a lot of say in those matters. But I think CP can be blamed for the Grbac over Gannon decision. And we could be looking at that again if Blaylock is allowed to leave to make room for LJ.

In fact, now that I think about it, this decision could really have an impact on the Vermeil-Peterson relationship. I'm sure DV will be pushing to re-sign Blaylock, while Peterson may decide not to really try to keep him here. If Vermiel senses a lack of urgency on CP's part, we may see sparks fly.

Yes, I agree the HC has a lot of say in the player picks...I figured that since DV and CP were friends that the relationship would be relatively free of acrimony, but it appears that isnt the case, specifically with the Johnson pick. It's eerily similar to the whole Greg Hill drama which played out under Marty.

I would like to believe that re-signing of Blaylock is a no brainer, but you never can tell with this group.

KCTitus
11-15-2004, 09:39 AM
Fu$k that. I don't want King Carl making any more decisions for my football team. Give me Pioli and get out of the way and let him do the voodoo that he does so well.

Miami is pushing hard for Pioli.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 09:43 AM
I think there come a time in every modern day NFL coaches tenure where his message is just not getting across anymore and the squad just is not buying into his rah rah rah speeches.

I think DV may be at this point. It happened with Marty as well. When this happens the team becomes very undiciplined. See Marty's exit for a reference.

How Bill Cowher has managed in Pittsburgh for so long is beyond me.
Cowher sets the tone. He doesn't take any shit from players and he will jump their asses if necessary. Cowher has a mean streak, Vermeil doesn't.

cash1000
11-15-2004, 09:56 AM
DV is getting old and senile.

Swanman
11-15-2004, 10:03 AM
Give me Pioli and get out of the way and let him do the voodoo that he does so well.

I'd also take either of their coordinators, Weis or Crennel, to be the next head coach. They've both proven to be inventive coaches within the framework of their talent (meaning they actually recognize weaknesses and gameplan accordingly).

The Bad Guy
11-15-2004, 10:07 AM
I agree with most of this.

Give the whole team an enema.

But I don't think that FAs care much for the lame duck coach. If you show them the money, they will come.

The Bad Guy
11-15-2004, 10:08 AM
Personally, I'm getting tired of the hugs in the locker room like is mentioned in Teicher's column today after loses.

The team lost. Why the F are you hugging?

shaneo69
11-15-2004, 10:36 AM
But I don't think that FAs care much for the lame duck coach. If you show them the money, they will come.

I agree. I guess the bigger problem with DV signing free agents this offseason is the "doesn't fit the new scheme" problem. Kind of like when CP allowed Gunther to draft Sly Morris in 2000, then one year later, he wasn't going to fit DV's WR profile, even had he been healthy. How many times did you hear DV say that Alexander and Morris were "long striders?" And it wasn't a compliment.

If we go out and sign a D-lineman, LB or CB this offseason to be a better fit in Gunther's scheme, and then Gunther's gone in '06, then we've just screwed our cap. Or if we draft a small, quick WR in the '05 draft to fit Saunders' scheme, and then the new guy comes in and installs the West Coast offense in '06, we've wasted a draft pick on a guy that doesn't fit.

This is why I think we need a new coach for '05, and one coming from outside the organization.

The Bad Guy
11-15-2004, 10:41 AM
I agree. I guess the bigger problem with DV signing free agents this offseason is the "doesn't fit the new scheme" problem. Kind of like when CP allowed Gunther to draft Sly Morris in 2000, then one year later, he wasn't going to fit DV's WR profile, even had he been healthy. How many times did you hear DV say that Alexander and Morris were "long striders?" And it wasn't a compliment.

If we go out and sign a D-lineman, LB or CB this offseason to be a better fit in Gunther's scheme, and then Gunther's gone in '06, then we've just screwed our cap. Or if we draft a small, quick WR in the '05 draft to fit Saunders' scheme, and then the new guy comes in and installs the West Coast offense in '06, we've wasted a draft pick on a guy that doesn't fit.

This is why I think we need a new coach for '05, and one coming from outside the organization.

I think you just have to go out and find players that can fundamentally tackle, cover a receiver and get after the quarterback.

Those players generally fit in any scheme.

HC_Chief
11-15-2004, 10:41 AM
I think you just have to go out and find players that can fundamentally tackle, cover a receiver and get after the quarterback.

Those players generally fit in any scheme.

But do they like to hug? :hmmm:

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 10:42 AM
I agree with most of this.

Give the whole team an enema.

But I don't think that FAs care much for the lame duck coach. If you show them the money, they will come.
There's the problem...the money. Carl won't go after the big-time FAs. He goes after the mediocre guys with the smaller salaries.

Ray Crockett
Carlton Gray
Lew Bush
Cris Dishman
Dexter McCleon
Ect...

KCTitus
11-15-2004, 10:47 AM
There's the problem...the money. Carl won't go after the big-time FAs. He goes after the mediocre guys with the smaller salaries.

Ray Crockett
Carlton Gray
Lew Bush
Cris Dishman
Dexter McCleon
Ect...

You forgot Lionel Dalton and Shawn Barber.

shaneo69
11-15-2004, 10:49 AM
I think you just have to go out and find players that can fundamentally tackle, cover a receiver and get after the quarterback.

Those players generally fit in any scheme.

I guess I'm just preparing myself for the excuses that will be coming from 1 Arrowhead Dr. when the '05 draft picks and free agent signings can't crack the starting lineup in '06.

The Bad Guy
11-15-2004, 11:00 AM
I guess I'm just preparing myself for the excuses that will be coming from 1 Arrowhead Dr. when the '05 draft picks and free agent signings can't crack the starting lineup in '06.

I completely understand. I am too.

It's like bring in a Pro Bowl corner and telling him he has to compete with your 4th year converted safety that has never had an interception in his life.

It's friggen insane and insulting.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 11:09 AM
You forgot Lionel Dalton and Shawn Barber.
Knowing you, you are being sarcastic, if that's the case, I'm failing to see how bringing those players up give any basis for the other side's argument. Surely you aren't implying that Dalton and Barber were top-tier FAs, are you?

KCTitus
11-15-2004, 11:14 AM
Knowing you, you are being sarcastic, if that's the case, I'm failing to see how bringing those players up give any basis for the other side's argument. Surely you aren't implying that Dalton and Barber were top-tier FAs, are you?

You're right...I also forgot Priest Holmes. He was a low tier 3rd down back when Carl went after him. However, Holmes foiled Carl's master plan.

Frankie
11-15-2004, 11:49 AM
DV is one of the best coaches in the NFL. Sure he has his eccentricities like all old coaches. But it still gives me hope when the I see him on the sideline when we are behind. I don't understand this thread. yeah, let's get rid of DV. I hear the saints coach might be looking for a job. He beat us yesterday right? :shake: Purging the coaches when we have an awesome 'O' and a great DC is not the way to go. Has anyone noticed we have perhaps the best O-line coach in the business? How would you like him to end up on the staff of one of our AFC rivals? When DV hangs it up, I hope we will have a smooth transition to one of his coaches (like Saunders). This ball club needs repairs, not rebuilding.

That said, I think CP can go and a couple of the defensive coaches as well. Can you say...... Guinta?

Swanman
11-15-2004, 11:55 AM
DV is one of the best coaches in the NFL. Sure he has his eccentricities like all old coaches. But it still gives me hope when the I see him on the sideline when we are behind. I don't understand this thread. yeah, let's get rid of DV. I hear the saints coach might be looking for a job. He beat us yesterday right? :shake: Purging the coaches when we have an awesome 'O' and a great DC is not the way to go. Has anyone noticed we have perhaps the best O-line coach in the business? How would you like him to end up on the staff of one of our AFC rivals? When DV hangs it up, I hope we will have a smooth transition to one of his coaches (like Saunders). This ball club needs repairs, not rebuilding.

That said, I think CP can go and a couple of the defensive coaches as well. Can you say...... Guinta?

So far this season the team has shown absolutely zero discipline, both with stupid penalties and blown assignments. In the end, the blame for both of those falls squarely on the head coach's shoulders, especially the dumb penalties part. The Chiefs play like a team that is not well-coached. Granted, they have talent deficiencies in many key areas but most bad players will not have penalties like the late-hit/taunting penalties yesterday.

And what exactly gives you hope looking at DV on the sideline? When I look at him when we're behind, he just looks flat-out confused. That doesn't really give me hope.

shaneo69
11-15-2004, 11:58 AM
DV is one of the best coaches in the NFL. Sure he has his eccentricities like all old coaches. But it still gives me hope when the I see him on the sideline when we are behind. I don't understand this thread. yeah, let's get rid of DV. I hear the saints coach might be looking for a job. He beat us yesterday right? :shake: Purging the coaches when we have an awesome 'O' and a great DC is not the way to go. Has anyone noticed we have perhaps the best O-line coach in the business? How would you like him to end up on the staff of one of our AFC rivals? When DV hangs it up, I hope we will have a smooth transition to one of his coaches (like Saunders). This ball club needs repairs, not rebuilding.

That said, I think CP can go and a couple of the defensive coaches as well. Can you say...... Guinta?

I'll let you buy my season tickets when Al Saunders gets named Head Coach.

RedandGold
11-15-2004, 11:59 AM
As nice as it would be to do some house cleaning in the front office, about all I expect to see in the offseason is Vermeils retirement and the naming of Saunders as HC.

With as much money as Peterson makes for Lamar, he's got a job for as long as he wants to keep it.

Frankie
11-15-2004, 12:03 PM
So far this season the team has shown absolutely zero discipline, both with stupid penalties and blown assignments. In the end, the blame for both of those falls squarely on the head coach's shoulders, especially the dumb penalties part. The Chiefs play like a team that is not well-coached. Granted, they have talent deficiencies in many key areas but most bad players will not have penalties like the late-hit/taunting penalties yesterday.

And what exactly gives you hope looking at DV on the sideline? When I look at him when we're behind, he just looks flat-out confused. That doesn't really give me hope.

Off the field lack of discipline is poison. The On-field type is correctable. I still bet on a coach of Vermeil's stature to do the correcting.

go bowe
11-15-2004, 12:20 PM
Off the field lack of discipline is poison. The On-field type is correctable. I still bet on a coach of Vermeil's stature to do the correcting.bet, huh?

i bet you just like long shots...

really long long shots... :(

The Bad Guy
11-15-2004, 12:23 PM
Off the field lack of discipline is poison. The On-field type is correctable. I still bet on a coach of Vermeil's stature to do the correcting.

You give Vermeil too much credit.

He's had 2 winning seasons out of the last 6. He does have a SB ring though.

Yeah, he's a great person, but I'm starting to doubt how great of a coach he is.

Every time he has a winning record its in the 3rd year of his "plan" and thats the year you get the softest schedule from being in the cellar the year before.

I like Vermeil, don't get me wrong, but his coaching legecy is beginning to become vastly overrated.

Mr. Laz
11-15-2004, 12:37 PM
Knowing Peterson, Wannestadt is the first choice. :p

yep... prolly linda




http://www.posternow.com/photos/imagem/r/r10102.jpg






.

Swanman
11-15-2004, 01:14 PM
Off the field lack of discipline is poison. The On-field type is correctable. I still bet on a coach of Vermeil's stature to do the correcting.

The coaching staff has had 3 years to correct the "correctable" lack of discipline. In most lines of work, if not all, if you haven't figured it out in 3 years, you'd be looking for a job. How many more times do we need to see a receiver streak down the middle of the field between our two safeties? That's stuff you should know when playing high school football, so it's real scary when our "pros" don't get the concept.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 01:43 PM
yep... prolly linda




http://www.posternow.com/photos/imagem/r/r10102.jpg






.

LMAO!!! You're no good, no good, no good, baby you're no good.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 01:46 PM
You're right...I also forgot Priest Holmes. He was a low tier 3rd down back when Carl went after him. However, Holmes foiled Carl's master plan.
I think you and I both know that Holmes was not considered a top-tier FA. It's great that he has turned out so great, but even Carl himself had no idea Holmes would be as phenomenal as he is. Again, Carl took the path of frugalness to address our HB woes.

tk13
11-15-2004, 01:50 PM
I think we'd probably better get used to the idea of Al Saunders being the next coach. Look on the bright side, he probably comes cheap.

Cheap? We're paying him 1 million dollars a year to be the stinking offensive coordinator. Unless the front office is cleaned out or a meteor hits the earth, he's being paid huge money to stick around and coach in KC and not somewhere else. I don't know what all the assistant coaches in the NFL make, but I imagine Saunders is one of the highest paid assistants in the league .

tk13
11-15-2004, 01:57 PM
Again, Carl took the path of frugalness to address our HB woes.
I still don't understand exactly how history got re-written in all of this to make Carl look like Scrooge McDuck for the last 15 years, but in 2001 and 02 the team had to clear 37 million dollars in dead money out of the way because Carl had not been economical and spent big money on stupid contracts.... it wasn't like the team had a zillion dollars in cap room... and it certainly wasn't him being cheap. It was him being the opposite of cheap, it was watching the big FA signings like Dan Williams, McGlockton, and Carlton Gray blow up in his face.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 02:00 PM
I still don't understand exactly how history got re-written in all of this to make Carl look like Scrooge McDuck for the last 15 years, but in 2001 and 02 the team had to clear 37 million dollars in dead money out of the way because Carl had not been economical and spent big money on stupid contracts.... it wasn't like the team had a zillion dollars in cap room... and it certainly wasn't him being cheap. It was him being the opposite of cheap, it was watching the big FA signings like Dan Williams, McGlockton, and Carlton Gray blow up in his face.EVERYTHING I said in my post is TRUE and accurate. Dispute what was said, not what you are seeing into the post.

Spott
11-15-2004, 02:00 PM
I hate to admit it, but Marty was better than Vermiel. We had one losing season in the 10 years he was here. He consistently led us to the playoffs with a bunch of has been QB's, mediocre WR's and TE's(except for Gonzo 1st 2 years) and a tightwad GM who only signed the cheap leftovers in the free agent market.

I wonder if Pete Carroll would leave USC if they win another national championsip this year.

KCTitus
11-15-2004, 02:00 PM
I still don't understand exactly how history got re-written...

It's the motto of the site...I think.

Did you know that prior to Carl's cheapness he hired a HC that drafted Lawrence Phillips?

KCTitus
11-15-2004, 02:02 PM
I hate to admit it, but Marty was better than Vermiel.

Yeah, Marty went 13-3 and flamed out in the playoffs TWICE.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 02:04 PM
I still don't understand exactly how history got re-written in all of this to make Carl look like Scrooge McDuck for the last 15 years, but in 2001 and 02 the team had to clear 37 million dollars in dead money out of the way because Carl had not been economical and spent big money on stupid contracts.... it wasn't like the team had a zillion dollars in cap room... and it certainly wasn't him being cheap. It was him being the opposite of cheap, it was watching the big FA signings like Dan Williams, McGlockton, and Carlton Gray blow up in his face.
Did you ever stop to think that Vermeil wanted to have "his" guys on the team? Most coaches do and most teams purge the roster and find themselves in cap crunch, when you are releasing players outright, no? Anytime time you purge a roster your going to deal with cap implications. That's common knowledge and happens to every team. '01 and '02 were a NEW regime so I don't think that holds much water.

tk13
11-15-2004, 02:05 PM
EVERYTHING I said in my post is TRUE and accurate. Dispute what was said, not what you are seeing into the post.
Sorry, I edited it down to the portion of your quote that I directly addressed. You specifically said Carl was "frugal" and that's why they went cheap on a running back... I directly addressed that.

KCTitus
11-15-2004, 02:07 PM
Did you ever stop to think that Vermeil wanted to have "his" guys on the team? Most coaches do and most teams purge the roster and find themselves in cap crunch, when you are releasing players outright, no? Anytime time you purge a roster your going to deal with cap implications. That's common knowledge and happens to every team. '01 and '02 were a NEW regime so I don't think that holds much water.

It's no coincidence that the guys that 'werent' Vermeil's guys had the fattest cap busting contracts on the team? I can think of 3 big names that got released...but Im sure there were more, maybe 5-6 or so.

How many did DV keep? I'd say the vast majority.

tk13
11-15-2004, 02:08 PM
Did you ever stop to think that Vermeil wanted to have "his" guys on the team? Most coaches do and most teams purge the roster and find themselves in cap crunch, when you are releasing players outright, no? Anytime time you purge a roster your going to deal with cap implications. That's common knowledge and happens to every team. '01 and '02 were a NEW regime so I don't think that holds much water.
What the heck does any of this have to do with not having a ton of cap room back then yet you saying Carl was "frugal"?.... it's like you can't even comprehend what I'm saying. The reason the team was "frugal" on anything back then was because we had to clean house because Carl was an idiot and threw money around like it was nothing.... that is not being frugal.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 02:09 PM
Sorry, I edited it down to the portion of your quote that I directly addressed. You specifically said Carl was "frugal" and that's why they went cheap on a running back... I directly addressed that.Cool. You do you agree though that Priest Holmes was NOT a top-tier FA when we picked him up, right? That's my whole point.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 02:11 PM
It's no coincidence that the guys that 'werent' Vermeil's guys had the fattest cap busting contracts on the team? I can think of 3 big names that got released...but Im sure there were more, maybe 5-6 or so.

How many did DV keep? I'd say the vast majority.
So you are making my point for me. You see, if we weren't willing to pay our best players (subject to debate), then it leans in my favor of the Chiefs being frugal.

KCTitus
11-15-2004, 02:12 PM
So you are making my point for me. You see, if we weren't willing to pay our best players (subject to debate), then it leans in my favor of the Chiefs being frugal.

Best players? Grbac, McGlockton, Williams, Carlton Gray, Lew Bush...

You want to try that again?

tk13
11-15-2004, 02:13 PM
Cool. You do you agree though that Priest Holmes was NOT a top-tier FA when we picked him up, right? That's my whole point.
Yes, and my point is that the reason we couldn't go after a ton of top-tier FA's at the time is because Carl had already went that route and it blew up in his face and we were cleaning house. Yes Vermeil wanted his guys but it's not a coincedence the guys we cut were all guys with huge contracts who weren't living up to them.

Swanman
11-15-2004, 02:39 PM
Yes, and my point is that the reason we couldn't go after a ton of top-tier FA's at the time is because Carl had already went that route and it blew up in his face and we were cleaning house. Yes Vermeil wanted his guys but it's not a coincedence the guys we cut were all guys with huge contracts who weren't living up to them.

Another thing to add to this, as I haven't seen it specifically, is that Carl is probably pretty damn gun-shy after wasting all that money on busts like McGlockton. So as a defense mechanism, he has signed a bunch of fairly cheap also-ran type players/projects and resigned his own mediocre players hoping that at least a couple of them would miracously improve instead of take his chances on a big name guy in FA.

There was a similar situation to that a couple years ago in Chicago. The Bears had a top 5 pick that their GM traded to move down in the draft. All the media guys in Chicago were basically calling the GM gutless because he was afraid to pick a top 5 guy that ended up being a bust so instead he traded down to the middle of the first round so if the guy he drafted there was a bust then people wouldn't be quite as mad. That sounds very Carl-like.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 02:48 PM
Best players? Grbac, McGlockton, Williams, Carlton Gray, Lew Bush...

You want to try that again?
Hello??? You must see what you want to see. I put in parenthesis it was subject to debate, I just wanted to stick to the topic and I would have considered Grbac, Williams, and McGlockton our better players back then, that doesn't say much about the rest, but they were all starters which is a very strong indicator of who your better players are.

Count Zarth
11-15-2004, 02:51 PM
I think the main problem with Vermeil is he is TOO NICE to his players.

Then when the time comes to get tough with them, either he WON'T do it or the players don't respond because they can't take him seriously when he tries to be "Vince Lombardi."

KCTitus
11-15-2004, 02:53 PM
Hello??? You must see what you want to see. I put in parenthesis it was subject to debate, I just wanted to stick to the topic and I would have considered Grbac, Williams, and McGlockton our better players back then, that doesn't say much about the rest, but they were all starters which is a very strong indicator of who your better players are.

:D -- I see quite fine and with the perfection of hindsight, I see even better. Let's play genious (chiefsplanet spelling) for a few minutes and think about the stance that those 3 were KC's better players--to the contrary, they were a big part of the problem.

It didnt help to lose Thomas to that freak accident...he was the defense.

MonroeChief
11-15-2004, 02:54 PM
What's the job qualifications?

I'm looking to relocate.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 02:55 PM
Yes, and my point is that the reason we couldn't go after a ton of top-tier FA's at the time is because Carl had already went that route and it blew up in his face and we were cleaning house. Yes Vermeil wanted his guys but it's not a coincedence the guys we cut were all guys with huge contracts who weren't living up to them. When you purge a roster and go with a new regime, there are ALWAYS cap implications. Can't you see by purguing the roster that we took more of a cap hit? It's real simple. When you purge the roster, the signing bonus is accelerated in either one or two seasons depending on when they are released. Of course your going to be up against the cap when you release players like McGlockton, Williams, Alexander, ect... and then have to go out and sign their replacements. Your acting like Carl spent gobs and gobs of money, when in FACT, he purged the roster accelerating the cap hit-Major difference.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 02:57 PM
:D -- I see quite fine and with the perfection of hindsight, I see even better. Let's play genious (chiefsplanet spelling) for a few minutes and think about the stance that those 3 were KC's better players--to the contrary, they were a big part of the problem.

It didnt help to lose Thomas to that freak accident...he was the defense.Their attitudes sucked ass and they took plays off, but they were our better players at the time, which is very evident considering how our run defense took a nose dive after they were gone.

tk13
11-15-2004, 03:10 PM
When you purge a roster and go with a new regime, there are ALWAYS cap implications. Can't you see by purguing the roster that we took more of a cap hit? It's real simple. When you purge the roster, the signing bonus is accelerated in either one or two seasons depending on when they are released. Of course your going to be up against the cap when you release players like McGlockton, Williams, Alexander, ect... and then have to go out and sign their replacements. Your acting like Carl spent gobs and gobs of money, when in FACT, he purged the roster accelerating the cap hit-Major difference.
You just aren't going to get it. I'm not even sure where you're trying to go with this. You're acting like Carl saved money or something. That signing bonus money accelerated against the cap was spent... you pay signing bonuses up front. Lamar had already accounted for every single dime of those signing bonuses when we cut Dan Williams and McGlockton, etc.... that's why it is called dead money, because you have paid money for people that are not even on your roster.

And that doesn't even go into the fact that some of these guys were the "top tier" FA's that flopped.... that's the reason they were cut to begin with, they were given big money and had failed miserably....

Sure-Oz
11-15-2004, 03:11 PM
Keep the same offense is all i ask.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 03:51 PM
You just aren't going to get it. I'm not even sure where you're trying to go with this. You're acting like Carl saved money or something. That signing bonus money accelerated against the cap was spent... you pay signing bonuses up front. Lamar had already accounted for every single dime of those signing bonuses when we cut Dan Williams and McGlockton, etc.... that's why it is called dead money, because you have paid money for people that are not even on your roster.

And that doesn't even go into the fact that some of these guys were the "top tier" FA's that flopped.... that's the reason they were cut to begin with, they were given big money and had failed miserably....
If what you are saying is true than why is the signing bonus accelerated and payment in full (of the signing bonus) HAS to be paid in either one year or two years depending when they are released? The signing bonus is the ONLY guaranteed money, so I don't believe ALL of the signing bonus is due up front. I believe as long as they are on the team, a portion of the bonus is paid for every year they are signed for. Why would you pay money for players not on the roster IF they have already recived their ENTIRE signing bonus one or two years later? You wouldn't. Now it may just be the cap hit that is accelerated, but then that makes the signing bonus able to be broken up in regards to the cap, which is my entire point.


The point of all this, was that Carl has done a bad job. Carl has NEVER gone out and gotten THE premier FA, but some defend him like he is a Football God or something. He chooses to go the mediocre route and sign players who will make less money than the top-tier guys and will perform just enough to get by. He has botched the draft more than not and he is the ONE RESPONSIBLE for the players on the field. I was also pointing out that when you purge a roster, you are going to have more cap implications which we've already discussed.

htismaqe
11-15-2004, 03:59 PM
If what you are saying is true than why is the signing bonus accelerated and payment in full (of the signing bonus) HAS to be paid in either one year or two years depending when they are released? The signing bonus is the ONLY guaranteed money, so I don't believe ALL of the signing bonus is due up front. I believe as long as they are on the team, a portion of the bonus is paid for every year they are signed for. Why would you pay money for players not on the roster IF they have already recived their ENTIRE signing bonus one or two years later? You wouldn't. Now it may just be the cap hit that is accelerated, but then that makes the signing bonus able to be broken up in regards to the cap, which is my entire point.


The point of all this, was that Carl has done a bad job. Carl has NEVER gone out and gotten THE premier FA, but some defend him like he is a Football God or something. He chooses to go the mediocre route and sign players who will make less money than the top-tier guys and will perform just enough to get by. He has botched the draft more than not and he is the ONE RESPONSIBLE for the players on the field. I was also pointing out that when you purge a roster, you are going to have more cap implications which we've already discussed.

Bullshit. He got Joe Montana, Marcus Allen, and even traded for Chester McGlockton when he was the consensus best DT in the game.

Has Carl failed? Absolutely...but get your facts straight.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 04:12 PM
Bullshit. He got Joe Montana, Marcus Allen, and even traded for Chester McGlockton when he was the consensus best DT in the game.

Has Carl failed? Absolutely...but get your facts straight.
I call BULLSHIT on your take.
FACT: Marcus Allen was long in the tooth and not a PREMEIR FA.
FACT: Joe Montana was well beyond his hey day and TRADED for.
FACT: McGlockton WASN'T a FA. We traded for him.

Maybe you should actually read what was said " THE premeir FA"

tk13
11-15-2004, 04:13 PM
If what you are saying is true than why is the signing bonus accelerated and payment in full (of the signing bonus) HAS to be paid in either one year or two years depending when they are released? The signing bonus is the ONLY guaranteed money, so I don't believe ALL of the signing bonus is due up front.

No.... this is why my head explodes three days a week. I'm arguing with a "Carl must go" clan that has even less of a clue about how finances and the salary cap works than I do....

This is directly from the Atlanta Falcons website... it's a nice little feature about how things work money-wise....

http://www.atlantafalcons.com/team/006/472/

For illustrationís sake, Xanders presented the example of a player signed to a six-year contract with a six-million dollar signing bonus. Though the player would receive all six-million dollars of the signing bonus up front, (for accounting purposes) his signing bonus is prorated over all six years of his contract at one million dollars per year.

When Jevon Kearse got a 20 million dollar signing bonus this offseason, they gave him 20 million dollars right on the spot. When Peyton Manning got a 33 million bonus, Jim Irsay gave him that money up front, even diving into his own personal money to do so.... that's how signing bonuses work. Now sometimes you can defer parts of that payment, apparently the Chiefs have had to do that with some players and pay the signing bonus over two years. When you're dealing with the "big name FA's" though, I imagine it's tough to sell guys like Jevon Kearse on the idea of "Well we only have 20 some odd million in profit to work with so we'll give you bits and pieces of your signing bonus as we move along" when Philly is sitting there able to say "Here's 20 million right now, sign with us and put it in your pocket". THAT is why Bi-State and renovations and more revenue is important to keeping the Chiefs competitive down the road.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 04:18 PM
No.... this is why my head explodes three days a week. I'm arguing with a "Carl must go" clan that has even less of a clue about how finances and the salary cap works than I do....

This is directly from the Atlanta Falcons website... it's a nice little feature about how things work money-wise....

http://www.atlantafalcons.com/team/006/472/



When Jevon Kearse got a 20 million dollar signing bonus this offseason, they gave him 20 million dollars right on the spot. When Peyton Manning got a 33 million bonus, Jim Irsay gave him that money up front, even diving into his own personal money to do so.... that's how signing bonuses work. Now sometimes you can defer parts of that payment, apparently the Chiefs have had to do that with some players and pay the signing bonus over two years. When you're dealing with the "big name FA's" though, I imagine it's tough to sell guys like Jevon Kearse on the idea of "Well we only have 20 some odd million in profit to work with so we'll give you bits and pieces of your signing bonus as we move along" when Philly is sitting there able to say "Here's 20 million right now, sign with us and put it in your pocket". THAT is why Bi-State and renovations and more revenue is important to keeping the Chiefs competitive.

How convient that you left out the most important part of my post when regarding the signing bonus...I said "Now it may just be the cap hit that is accelerated, but then that makes the signing bonus able to be broken up in regards to the cap, which is my entire point."



Hmmmm. Some of you are quick to critisize and then botch the facts yourself.

tk13
11-15-2004, 04:25 PM
I'm done with this. This is worse than arguing with Denise. I don't think you're even reading what I'm writing. I'm trying to explain to you how NFL contracts work, your misconceptions in how they work, and how that relates to my original point but I can see now it'd take me a full 3 credit hour semester to pull half of it off, so nevermind.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 04:31 PM
I'm done with this. This is worse than arguing with Denise. I don't think you're even reading what I'm writing. I'm trying to explain to you how NFL contracts work, your misconceptions in how they work, and how that relates to my original point but I can see now it'd take me a full 3 credit hour semester to pull half of it off, so nevermind.
I'm done too. I CLEARLY showed you where you conviently left out the part of the post that indicated that it may be paid all up front, BUT for salary cap purposes it's extended over the life of the contract, but for some reason you'd rather stoop to insults such as the school comment. I thought we were having a legit discussion, but you only want to see what you want than what was clearly stated. You still haven't admitted it, so I'm happy to spend my time elsewhere than going round and round on why you justify Carl's track record and why I don't. I'm glad you are content, you can take great pride in the 3-6 record and all that was done to improve our team. I, however, won't.

tk13
11-15-2004, 04:41 PM
it may be paid all up front, BUT for salary cap purposes it's extended over the life of the contract.

Good! Something registered. I'm glad you understand that now.... that statement is in direct opposition to this statement you just a couple posts ago...

I don't believe ALL of the signing bonus is due up front. I believe as long as they are on the team, a portion of the bonus is paid for every year they are signed for.

Which is why I made the post I did. But now that (I think) we have that cleared up. The point was Carl did exactly what you want him to do, sign big name free agents, it didn't work, so we had to cut them, so we had no cap space, which is why we were "frugal" in the 2001 offseason. The sad part is that all this garbage in no way shape or form makes me a Carl apologist, I'm not pleased with him, but I can't stop myself from trying to correct people when I see them slinging incorrect facts around....

Bob Dole
11-15-2004, 04:44 PM
Bullshit. He got Joe Montana, Marcus Allen, and even traded for Chester McGlockton when he was the consensus best DT in the game.

Over the hill. Couldn't run more than 3 yards. Consesus pick of footballchicks.com.

You're a dipshit.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 04:49 PM
Good! Something registered. I'm glad you understand that now.... that statement is in direct opposition to this statement you just a couple posts ago...



Which is why I made the post I did. But now that (I think) we have that cleared up. The point was Carl did exactly what you want him to do, sign big name free agents, it didn't work, so we had to cut them, so we had no cap space, which is why we were "frugal" in the 2001 offseason. The sad part is that all this garbage in no way shape or form makes me a Carl apologist, I'm not pleased with him, but I can't stop myself from trying to correct people when I see them slinging incorrect facts around....
That's all from the SAME post, so I've always gotten it. I think we just need to agree to disagree. You're a fellow Chief fan and I don't want to get into a pissing match you. The bottomline is I feel that Carl isn't a great GM when it comes to personel. That's how I feel and believe I indicated that in my posts. I respect your opinion, but disagree in this case and will continue to question Car's ineptness, until he can prove otherwise, so we might be better served to just agree to disagree.

htismaqe
11-16-2004, 10:27 AM
I call BULLSHIT on your take.
FACT: Marcus Allen was long in the tooth and not a PREMEIR FA.
FACT: Joe Montana was well beyond his hey day and TRADED for.
FACT: McGlockton WASN'T a FA. We traded for him.

Maybe you should actually read what was said " THE premeir FA"

The premier FA in 1997 was DERRICK THOMAS. And we signed him.

As for Marcus Allen, we're heard RIGHT HERE that we didn't need Greg Hill because we had Marcus Allen. So which is it?

And now you're quibbling over technicalities like unrestricted free agents versus restricted free agents because you know you're wrong.

Carl HAS brought in big name guys, over and over again, and it's FAILED.

htismaqe
11-16-2004, 10:29 AM
That's all from the SAME post, so I've always gotten it. I think we just need to agree to disagree. You're a fellow Chief fan and I don't want to get into a pissing match you. The bottomline is I feel that Carl isn't a great GM when it comes to personel. That's how I feel and believe I indicated that in my posts. I respect your opinion, but disagree in this case and will continue to question Car's ineptness, until he can prove otherwise, so we might be better served to just agree to disagree.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

You're saying on the one hand that Carl stands pat and does nothing. At the same time, you're saying that Carl is a poor evaluator of talent and that the guys he brings in are bums.

So WHICH IS IT?

I'll give you the latter argument -- Carl can't evaluate talent worth a shit. But to say, just because they didn't sign anyone this offseason, that he NEVER signed any big names is absolutely false.

Rausch
11-16-2004, 10:30 AM
FACT: McGlockton WASN'T a FA. We traded for him.


Actually, he was a FA. But we were required to give compensation to the Faiders...

KCTitus
11-16-2004, 10:40 AM
Yes, Glock was an RFA of the Transition/Franchise variety. Oakland did not match the offer sheet and KC had to give a 1st and 3rd.

Bearcat
11-16-2004, 10:53 AM
I think there come a time in every modern day NFL coaches tenure where his message is just not getting across anymore and the squad just is not buying into his rah rah rah speeches.

I think DV may be at this point. It happened with Marty as well. When this happens the team becomes very undiciplined. See Marty's exit for a reference.

How Bill Cowher has managed in Pittsburgh for so long is beyond me.


I thought of this a couple of weeks ago when they showed him doing his pregame routine, trying to pump up the team. I could tell the players weren't really into it, since it's the same thing every week.

The Bad Guy
11-16-2004, 10:54 AM
Yes, Glock was an RFA of the Transition/Franchise variety. Oakland did not match the offer sheet and KC had to give a 1st and 3rd.

No the Raiders only got a pick sandwiched between the first and 2nd round.

KCTitus
11-16-2004, 10:57 AM
I honestly dont remember, but I do know the raiders got a high pick for not matching the offer sheet.

Baby Lee
11-16-2004, 11:02 AM
How Bill Cowher has managed in Pittsburgh for so long is beyond me.
I'm getting this premonition of the AFC Semi-Finals pitting Dungy against Schottenheimer and Cowher against Edwards.

Just the kind of kharma a Chiefs fan deserves. :cuss:

Brock
11-16-2004, 11:26 AM
I'm getting this premonition of the AFC Semi-Finals pitting Dungy against Schottenheimer and Cowher against Edwards.

Just the kind of kharma a Chiefs fan deserves. :cuss:

Why do you feel a Chiefs fan deserves that?

Baby Lee
11-16-2004, 11:32 AM
Why do you feel a Chiefs fan deserves that?
I was being sardonic. Kind of a "well that'd just be the icing on a shitty cake" sentiment.

Calcountry
11-16-2004, 11:49 AM
Personally, I'm getting tired of the hugs in the locker room like is mentioned in Teicher's column today after loses.

The team lost. Why the F are you hugging?
Are team is ghey, it is as simple as that.

Until the cut back on the estrogen, and start drafting and coaching testosterone, they are fooked.

htismaqe
11-16-2004, 12:05 PM
I'm getting this premonition of the AFC Semi-Finals pitting Dungy against Schottenheimer and Cowher against Edwards.

Just the kind of kharma a Chiefs fan deserves. :cuss:

Somebody slap this bastard...

shaneo69
11-16-2004, 01:03 PM
I honestly dont remember, but I do know the raiders got a high pick for not matching the offer sheet.

They picked a guy named Bender at the end of the 1st round and he died suddenly of a mysterious ailment before he ever played for the faiders.

KCTitus
11-16-2004, 01:11 PM
They picked a guy named Bender at the end of the 1st round and he died suddenly of a mysterious ailment before he ever played for the faiders.

Talk about a waste of a first round pick!