The Main Reason this season has gone BAD!!!!

[Alphaman]

....and it ain't the D.

IT'S THE RED ZONE OFFENSE!!!!!

1) Houston game - going in for the deciding score, interception for a TD the other way....we score there and the game is over

2) TB game - Kennison breaks free for a TD that would have dramatically changed the game, fumbles after being caught from behind. I think we would have gone up by 2 TDs.

3) Indy game - Priest fumbles inside the 5. We should have had a TD there and would have been up 14-0. Based on the way the offense was playing that day, the game would been a route.

4) NO game - Morton fumbles inside the 15, a TD there puts us up 14-0 and changes the game, likely taking McAllister out of the game. Next drive, we have 6 plays from the 6 to get in and don't do it and end up with a FG. That's a minimum of 17-0, if not 21-0. Later we have another int in the red zone going for the tying score.


That's 4 games where we've had an opportunity to put the game away, when we would have scored TDs last year. For some reason it's just not happening. Add in one first down against J-ville and the record for this team all of sudden becomes 7-2.


I know the defense has been bad, but if we score TDs against Houston, TB, and NO on those red zone turnovers, those games are over and our D doesn't look as bad.

[Inspector]

I figured it was all those losses.

But, I'm sort of a simpleton....

[Baby Lee]

Our bad players continue to play bad, our decent players have occasional brain farts, and the cream of our team has had MONUMENTAL brain farts at critical times.
Which is more realistic, for our bad players to play better, or for our premiere players to refrain from shitting the game away in grand fashion?
THAT, is the question.

[Coogs]

....and it ain't the D.

You know, this arguement is just like the Colts playoff loss last year. If Morton wouldn't have dropped the pass, if Priest wouldn't have fumbled, if the Gonzo TD would have stood, etc... we would have beaten the Colts. Therefore the offense is to blame for the playoff loss, because we didn't expect the defense to chip in with anything to help out.

Sure, you can make a case for the red zone failures, as this is a team sport. But it is a team sport, and there is no way you can exclude the defense as part of the main reason this season has gone bad.

[Phobia]

Our bad players continue to play bad, our decent players have occasional brain farts, and the cream of our team has had MONUMENTAL brain farts at critical times.
Which is more realistic, for our bad players to play better, or for our premiere players to refrain from shitting the game away in grand fashion?
THAT, is the question.

This is precisely why I hate NFL salaries. I'm not so much opposed to a player making several million a year. I'm opposed to players making several million a year and upon realizing that his grandkids don't have to work a day in their lives, they phone it in. IMO, if a game check depended upon you not fumbling away a game deciding carry, there'd be a whole helluva lot fewer fumbles. If Woods and Wesley forfeited a game check every time they let a WR behing them, we'd see fewer long TD's. Etc.

[Mr. Laz]

You know, this arguement is just like the Colts playoff loss last year. If Morton wouldn't have dropped the pass, if Priest wouldn't have fumbled, if the Gonzo TD would have stood, etc... we would have beaten the Colts. Therefore the offense is to blame for the playoff loss, because we didn't expect the defense to chip in with anything to help out.

Sure, you can make a case for the red zone failures, as this is a team sport. But it is a team sport, and there is no way you can exclude the defense as part of the main reason this season has gone bad.
well said :thumb: :thumb:



and to add another little bit of food for thought ...


if the offensive guys weren't pressing so hard to try and score every possession to make up for our "well known" crappy defense, maybe they don't make those mistakes.

[|Zach|]

IMO the Texans and Jags game was on them. The defense put us in situations to win those games but the offense couldn't run out the damn clcok. All we needed was a few first downs... Esp in the Jacksonville game...since then though its all defense in my mind.

[Coogs]

well said :thumb: :thumb:



and to add another little bit of food for thought ...


if the offensive guys weren't pressing so hard to try and score every possession to make up for our "well known" crappy defense, maybe they don't make those mistakes.

A "well said" back at you! :thumb:

[KCJohnny]

Alphaman is right. This team was intentionally built with a stacked offense at the expense of a declining defense. As bad as it sounds, it IS the offenses' fault when all the horses are on that side of the ball. Had there been more balance in the architecture, there would be more blame to spread around. DV inherited the league's 8th best offense and 18th best defense and ran the O up to #1 and the D down to #32. That equals .500, or to put it in Planetese, MEDIOCRITY.

[Phobia]

You guys aren't really proving anything with the finger pointing other than football is truly a team sport like no other.

[Hammock Parties]

It's more than one thing. Most of our losses have been team losses.

[2bikemike]

While there is more than enough blame to go around the last few games should rest squarely on the defense. NO way should New Orleans been kept in the game. I feel the same way about the Tampa game.

Earlier in the year there was plenty of blame that should be levied against the offensive failures.

[Rausch]

I was going to say injuries and sloppy play, but WTF do I know...

[Coogs]

Alphaman is right. This team was intentionally built with a stacked offense at the expense of a declining defense.

I would say initially, instead of intentionally. A lot of money and draft picks have been spent the last two/three seasons on the defensive side of the ball. And for the most part, those investments/picks have been crapola.

Sims and Freeman were the first two picks 3 years ago. One average player at best.

Holiday, McCleon, and Barber were brought in last season. Seems to be wasted money as well. Mitchell and Battle were 2nd and 3rd round selections. Not out of the realm to expect strong contributions in thier 2nd season. Hasn't happened.

Many of our own defensive players were retained, as "knowing what you have is better than bringing in somebody new". Woods, Warfield, Wesley, Bartee, Hicks, Browning to name a few, were showered with FA bucks that could have been spent elsewhere.

Saivii is a 2nd, and Fox a 3rd were added this season. Maybe they will still pan out, as injuries have set them back, but as injury depleated as the LB corp is, and Fox hasn't moved anybody out of their position yet.

So, while I agree the offense was the initial priority of the DV era, the defense has not been ignored. Just grossly miss evaluated talent wise.

[Skip Towne]

Penalties have been killer too. 12 in the first half against NO.

[KCJohnny]

Build up up only your arms and chest, and get left in the dust when it comes to running. Build up only your offense, and expect to be in a shootout every week. Some of you guys act surprised; this was intentional. After 4 years and a composite record of 30-27, this bunch is no better off than Cunningham's Chiefs.

[4th and Long]

....and it ain't the D.

IT'S THE RED ZONE OFFENSE!!!!!
You gotta' be shittin' me! Are you telling me the 230+ points this joke of a defense has given up is far and away NOT the reason we have so many losses? Do you seriously expect this offense to put up 40+ points every damn game? What a totally unrealistic pipe dream that is.

Tell ya what. Here's a dollar.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/math/money/gifs/dollarfrontcolor216x91.GIF

GO BUY A CLUE!

[Bowser]

This season has gone bad because this team believed the hype that they had arrived, that most of the "stars" on this team have received fat ass contracts, and they have a head coach who would rather coddle his players than get neck deep in their rectums for not playing even close to their potential.

I'm starting to sound like The Bad Guy..........:D

[Coogs]

Build up up only your arms and chest, and get left in the dust when it comes to running. Build up only your offense, and expect to be in a shootout every week. Some of you guys act surprised; this was intentional. After 4 years and a composite record of 30-27, this bunch is no better off than Cunningham's Chiefs.

I repeat. We brought is 6 draft picks in the last three years in the first three rounds of the draft on defense. And three top end FA's two years ago. That is 9 players on defense. And the return on that investment is close to nil.

So "intentional".... NO WAY!

[suds79]

Well I guess this makes for a fresh new outlook.

I mean it'd be a pretty boring BB if everybody always said that it's the defense's fault.

But to keep it simple, it is. No matter which way you spin it.

[KCJohnny]

Coogs, I wasn't implying that nothing was done to change the D; I am saying that when Vermiel and the 17 Rams former players/staffers rolled into ONe Arrowhead Drive in 2000 the KC Chiefs had the #8 offense and #18 defense in the league. The coughed up a #1 pick for Green when they already had a 4,000 yd PB QB and signed Morton, Roaf, Kennison, and Holmes. Three legit defensive players were cut or released or not signed (McGlockton, Hasty, Edwards). It put the team into a deep hole. Not to mention, the '01 Chiefs payed $19 mil to players NOT even on the team. (ahem). This should surprise no one. Those of you who boaght into this 4 years ago...

...here ya go!
:)

[morphius]

The main reason, failures in every phase of the game, the offense, the defense, the special teams, coaching, officiating, injuries, and just good old bad luck.

[KCJohnny]

The main reason, failures in every phase of the game, the offense, the defense, the special teams, coaching, officiating, injuries, and just good old bad luck.

STOP MAKING SENSE! I'm pushing a POV here! :cuss:

[philfree]

This should surprise no one. Those of you who boaght into this 4 years ago...

I kinda figured that with the #1 offense and Gun as DC with several players he knows and some he help acquire we would of went 16-0. Go figure :hmmm:

PhilFree :arrow:

[Hammock Parties]

After 4 years and a composite record of 30-27, this bunch is no better off than Cunningham's Chiefs.

But hey! We are more exciting to watch! And everyone is such a nice guy!

:rolleyes:

[2bikemike]

I would say initially, instead of intentionally. A lot of money and draft picks have been spent the last two/three seasons on the defensive side of the ball. And for the most part, those investments/picks have been crapola.

Sims and Freeman were the first two picks 3 years ago. One average player at best.

Holiday, McCleon, and Barber were brought in last season. Seems to be wasted money as well. Mitchell and Battle were 2nd and 3rd round selections. Not out of the realm to expect strong contributions in thier 2nd season. Hasn't happened.

Many of our own defensive players were retained, as "knowing what you have is better than bringing in somebody new". Woods, Warfield, Wesley, Bartee, Hicks, Browning to name a few, were showered with FA bucks that could have been spent elsewhere.

Saivii is a 2nd, and Fox a 3rd were added this season. Maybe they will still pan out, as injuries have set them back, but as injury depleated as the LB corp is, and Fox hasn't moved anybody out of their position yet.

So, while I agree the offense was the initial priority of the DV era, the defense has not been ignored. Just grossly miss evaluated talent wise.



I repeat. We brought is 6 draft picks in the last three years in the first three rounds of the draft on defense. And three top end FA's two years ago. That is 9 players on defense. And the return on that investment is close to nil.

So "intentional".... NO WAY!

Excellent points. :thumb:

[morphius]

STOP MAKING SENSE! I'm pushing a POV here! :cuss:
LOL! I took one of those internet tests, it told me I was a realist, so I figured I better just go with that :D

You can point at some bad coaching decisions during some of the games, but at the same time, your friend Cunningham has called some horrible D's at the wrong time, and I can almost guantee that Gun said that he could make these guys work before he even took the job.

[KCJohnny]

I kinda figured that with the #1 offense and Gun as DC with several players he knows and some he help acquire we would of went 16-0. Go figure :hmmm:

PhilFree :arrow:

Phil, that IS the conventional wisdom. I'm perplexed m'self... :hmmm:

Still, this team was designed after the '99 Rams template, and it didn't work. All you guys lauding that 4-wide "pass to set up the run" O of 2001 have (thankfully) yielded to the current I-Formation power house that we now run.

This D is very, very bad, and the main reason is the play of the LBs and secondary for the past 4 years. As much as some of you hate me to say it, this _efense has been pathetic since Donnie Edwards left. :deevee:

[Coogs]

KCJ,

You know, DV almost got us there. He said he was going to build the offense first, then the defense. And he stayed true to his plan. Only problem with it was the players brought in to bolster the defense didn't pan out. Now the offense is aging, but still producing at a pretty good rate. Even with the Red Zone failures, I will bet most cities fans in the NFL would love to have our offense. They are still damn fun to watch.

To a large degree, the offense has been virtually igonred (sans our 3rd string RB LJ) the last three years in the draft and in free agency. And so we are left with an aging offense and a crappy defense. Not a good recipie for repeated runs at the title I guess, but IMO, DV was true to his word, and good for KC.

That said, I am looking forward to the rebuilding phase the will have to happen sometime in the near future.

[KCJohnny]

KCJ,

You know, DV almost got us there. He said he was going to build the offense first, then the defense. And he stayed true to his plan. Only problem with it was the players brought in to bolster the defense didn't pan out. Now the offense is aging, but still producing at a pretty good rate. Even with the Red Zone failures, I will bet most cities fans in the NFL would love to have our offense. They are still damn fun to watch.

To a large degree, the offense has been virtually igonred (sans our 3rd string RB LJ) the last three years in the draft and in free agency. And so we are left with an aging offense and a crappy defense. Not a good recipie for repeated runs at the title I guess, but IMO, DV was true to his word, and good for KC.

That said, I am looking forward to the rebuilding phase the will have to happen sometime in the near future.

Fun to watch? No argument.

Better than Marty? Nope. Less playoff appearances.

Better than Gunther? In 2003. First 2 seasons, 14-18, worse than Cunningham's 16-16. Head to head, Gun wins.

Investment in the D? Explain drafting Larry Johnson with the all-decade NFL RB in our backfield?

3 players DV dumped in '01: Edwards, McGlockton, and (by extension) Hasty. KC had 54 sacks in '00 (2nd in AFC). That had something like 29 in '01. Kc has ranked 23rd, 27th, and 32nd in team defense during Vermiel's tenure. We are in the bottom 5 now.

[Phobia]

Still, this team was designed after the '99 Rams template, and it didn't work.

It didn't? Wow.

[Phobia]

Fun to watch? No argument.

Better than Marty? Nope. Less playoff appearances.

Better than Gunther? In 2003. First 2 seasons, 14-18, worse than Cunningham's 16-16. Head to head, Gun wins.

Investment in the D? Explain drafting Larry Johnson with the all-decade NFL RB in our backfield?

3 players DV dumped in '01: Edwards, McGlockton, and (by extension) Hasty. KC had 54 sacks in '00 (2nd in AFC). That had something like 29 in '01. Kc has ranked 23rd, 27th, and 32nd in team defense during Vermiel's tenure. We are in the bottom 5 now.

Nice agenda, KCJ.

[Coogs]

Better than Marty?

Investment in the D? Explain drafting Larry Johnson with the all-decade NFL RB in our backfield?

I didn't say he was better than Marty. Hell, I really liked Marty. Still do. Admire what he brought to the Chiefs.

Read my other posts for investments on the D. The one first round draft pick we missed with LJ doesn't take this team from where it is to the top of the heap. Maybe the other 6 top 3 rounds picks and top tier FA's we picked up do, but not one 1st rounder makes that much difference.

Priest injury was the sole reason for LJ. Blaylock couldn't unseat Cloud in his 2nd year here, so to plan the future on Blaylock at that time was not a good plan if Holmes couldn't go. Now that Blaylock has had 3 1/2 years, it becomes painfully obvious we could have passed on LJ. But taillights burn brighter. Let's just hope we can somehow keep Blaylock. Especially if he turns in a 100 yard outing again tomorrow night.

But the LJ pick instead of a defensive player is not the main reason our defense sucks.

[philfree]

Still, this team was designed after the '99 Rams template,

I really disagree. IMO it was built with the characteristics of a DV team. A stud RB with a great O line a multi-deminsional offense(the same O he ran in Philly) and what is supposed a decent D. The D has been a failure to this point as we all know. STs is part of that equation too and we have had some success there with Dante but the covereage hasn't been good enough. I guess when they canned Gun as HC you decided to be a DV hater and IMO that's too bad. This year hasn't gone as we wanted but he's still a damn good HC.

PhilFree :arrow:

[Logical]

Maybe it is a nitpick but we won the Indy game so why did you include it?

The losses IMO have been complete team failures Special teams, Defense and Offense. Why are we trying to blame it on one phase of the game?

[Hammock Parties]

Maybe it is a nitpick but we won the Indy game so why did you include it?

The losses IMO have been complete team failures Special teams, Defense and Offense. Why are we trying to blame it on one phase of the game?

Quote for truth. The Chiefs wouldn't be 3-6 if the redzone offense was the only problem.

[Coogs]

Maybe it is a nitpick but we won the Indy game so why did you include it?


ROFL

Shoot, I didn't even read that part. I didn't get past the Red Zone offense before I started responding.

[Alphaman]

You gotta' be shittin' me! Are you telling me the 230+ points this joke of a defense has given up is far and away NOT the reason we have so many losses? Do you seriously expect this offense to put up 40+ points every damn game? What a totally unrealistic pipe dream that is.

Tell ya what. Here's a dollar.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/math/money/gifs/dollarfrontcolor216x91.GIF

GO BUY A CLUE!

Ah, personal attacks. I like it. Yes the defense has been horendous and I could make a very strong case for them being the main reason we are 3-6. What you all are missing in my statement is that scores on the drives I mentioned in the Red Zone dramatically change the game. All of them would have given us 2 TD leads. That changes the way offenses have to play against us and the way we play defense. Again, we go up 17-0 or 21-0 against NO, McAllister does not run for 120+ yards on us. Brooks was looking horrible up to that point. Further, up to that point, the D was playing well and the Saints were demoralized. Getting 3 points out of 14 gave the Saints and their fans new life. Same with the TB game. The Houston game was going to be put on ice, and our offense gave them new life.

40 points a game? Not at all. The TB, Indy and NO red zone gaffs were all in the first quarter and could have put the game away early. The NFL is a game of momentum and we had a chance to seize it, instead we gave it to the opposition. Remember we lost all 3 of those games by a TD or less.

Yes the defense is very bad, but at the time of these plays, they had played well enough to set us up for 2 TD leads. Think about that for a minute. That means they were forcing punts or getting turnovers.

My thoughts on next year are to replace at least 3 defensive starters (Bartee, Woods, and Barber) and possibly a new MLB. However, I'd like to see at least 1 WR.

[Inspector]

There is no "I" in loss.

[philfree]

IMO everything Alphaman states is true. Penalties have also stalled our momentum on O and also given it to the other teams O when we have them stopped but a penalty gives them a first down. Redzone TOs have cost us big though.


PhilFree :arrow:

[PastorMikH]

I agree on the red zone O but I really wonder about our coaching right now. Why is it we can beat the better teams and lose to the ones that aren't so good? The 3 games we have won have been against 3 teams that will be in the playoffs. However, 4 of the 6 losses have been to teams with losing records. Again, if we can beat the better teams, why are we struggling so with the poorer ones.

[Coogs]

IMO everything Alphaman states is true. Penalties have also stalled our momentum on O and also given it to the other teams O when we have them stopped but a penalty gives them a first down. Redzone TOs have cost us big though.


PhilFree :arrow:

Except for his initial two or three lines.

The Main Reason this season has gone BAD!!!! And it ain't the D...

It the Red Zone Offense.



Shoot, both of the fumbles were in the Red Zone, but that wasn't the Red Zone offense. One of the plays was about a 70 yarder against TB. The one against the Saints was from near mid-field.

Truth is, every single phase of the team has been responsible for the 3-6 mark. This can't be traced down to one single phase of the game. Coaching has sucked at critical times, including in the Red Zone. ST's have sucked a critical times. Defense has sucked at critical times. And, yes, the offense has sucked at crucial times too. There is no main reason.

[bkkcoh]

Better reason why we aren't doing as well as we did last year.

The turn-overs are coming our usual way, we are -20 or so from this time last year.

We are not a strong mentally as we were last year, we are committing stupid penalties that our good offense hasn't been able to overcome.

Our stronger defense, compared to last year, was hurt seriously with injuries, especially along the offensive line. Remember, our defensive wasn't really a sieve until Maz went down in the Cincy Game. Needless to say, he isn't the best lb we have, but he is the type of player that is and could have been a team leader on D.

Our young receivers, which looked like they would have a lot of promise this year, has been hurt with injuries.

I would say those are 3 pretty sound reasons as to why we aren't doing very well.

[Straight, No Chaser]

I agree on the red zone O but I really wonder about our coaching right now. Why is it we can beat the better teams and lose to the ones that aren't so good? ...

A Parity salad with a sprinkle of bad fortune and a dash of ill-timed penalties.

You have to wonder the about the vision (and memory) of someone saying it was better under Gunther and who preferred Marty. Gunther, bless 'em, was a disorganized mess. The stench of player character in Marty's final year was horrendous. Hindsight, in this case KCJ, is not 20/20.


---->

[OldTownChief]

A Parity salad with a sprinkle of bad fortune and a dash of ill-timed penalties.




Stirr in a few unfortunate turnovers and that's exactly why we're not 6-3.

[craneref]

This thread echos what I have been arguing at work, we have not put the ball in the endzone like we did last year. Leaving teams in the game takes a toll on a defense, especially one that can use all the help it can get like ours. Defense tends to feed on what the offense does, just like the offense feeds on the Defense. Whenever the Defense gets a great stop or turnover, how many times have you seen the Offense come out and immediately put points on the board, and conversely, when the Offense comes out and sticks it in for 7, the Defense comes out to play inspeired. But if the Defense gives up a big play or a lot of yardage, the Offense feels pressure and if the Offense turns the ball over or can't move the ball, the Defense feels the pressure. Last year we were finding ways to win, Offense, Special Teams, big pick or fumble recovery, this year we are finding ways to lose, and that is a team blame thing, when the TEAM decides to "Refuse to Lose", then they will start dominating again. On a side note, ESPN said that KC has either been ahead or tied in the 4th quarter in all 6 games we have lost this year, ATTITUDE is the reason. GO CHIEFS.

[alanm]

Coogs, I wasn't implying that nothing was done to change the D; I am saying that when Vermiel and the 17 Rams former players/staffers rolled into ONe Arrowhead Drive in 2000 the KC Chiefs had the #8 offense and #18 defense in the league. The coughed up a #1 pick for Green when they already had a 4,000 yd PB QB and signed Morton, Roaf, Kennison, and Holmes. Three legit defensive players were cut or released or not signed (McGlockton, Hasty, Edwards). It put the team into a deep hole. Not to mention, the '01 Chiefs payed $19 mil to players NOT even on the team. (ahem). This should surprise no one. Those of you who boaght into this 4 years ago...

...here ya go!
:)Your forgetting John that Gunther had gone insane and the players quit on him. Remember the season finale against Atlanta in 2000?:hmmm: That's why he was fired.

[CHIEF4EVER]

KCJ, I would say your view IS, and always HAS BEEN slanted/biased and utterly devoid of objectivity as concerns Gunther. Listen, I love the guy and think he is a heckuva DCOORD but the fact of the matter is he STUNK IT UP as a HC. I truly believe he will make this D something to be proud of in a short time and with better talent (a turd is a turd no matter how you polish it). That being said, I am of the opinion that the _efense is THE BIGGEST REASON why we are struggling. No offense (as has already been astutely mentioned) should be required to put up 30+ points on a week in/week out basis in order to win. At some point, the _efensive side of the house has to be cleaned and by that I mean lockers being cleaned out and asses being kicked to the curb of each and every deadweight nonhacker who have had all the chances in the world and either cannot or will not produce. Vermeil is the best coach KC has had since Hank Stram and I believe he will bring us a championship very soon.

[htismaqe]

Your forgetting John that Gunther had gone insane and the players quit on him. Remember the season finale against Atlanta in 2000?:hmmm: That's why he was fired.

No, he's not. He never acknowledged it happened.

He still insists this team was patterned exactly after the Rams. At least we know that he doesn't have a clue what he's looking at on the TV. That's why he has to make up acronyms to describe it.

[Otter]

Your forgetting John that Gunther had gone insane and the players quit on him. Remember the season finale against Atlanta in 2000?:hmmm: That's why he was fired.

Let's not forget his press conferences. Oh god, those press conferences. :(

[InChiefsHeaven]

of our 6 losses, only two were by more than one touchdown. OF the remaining 4 games we lost, scoring 30 points would have been sufficient except for the Bucs. Not only would it have been sufficient, but extremely possible given the opponent and the fact that our Red Zone O kept shooting itself in the foot. Penalties, fumbles, bad throws and interceptions at extremely bad times gave the opponents life and at the same time sapped the life out of our already lifeless defense.

Is our offense as good as the Dolts? I think so, if not maybe better, but putting up 30 points a game is something we should be able to accomplish, with some exceptions.

Our defense sucks ass. Big surprise. I don't like the amount of pressure it puts on our O, but at the same time, the team is designed to win with offense. They can't afford to make the mistakes they have been making. The are just as culpable as the D, and maybe even a little more so because the team is designed around them so much.

Then there are the Special Teams, but I don't even want to go there...

[KCTitus]

None of this has anything to do with why KC lost...it's because of the slacker fans on this BB not wearing their lucky sweater/socks/jersey or cooking the correct pre-game meal or failing to watch the game altogether.

[teedubya]

i agree with Alphaman, that we could easily be 7-2... so from now on, in my delusional world... they are 7-2.

[InChiefsHeaven]

None of this has anything to do with why KC lost...it's because of the slacker fans on this BB not wearing their lucky sweater/socks/jersey or cooking the correct pre-game meal or failing to watch the game altogether.

Sorry. I have 2 jerseys, Thomas and Hasty, whose power I try to conjure up by wearing them. I switch them out depending on the opponent, wheather or not we need better run D or better coverage. Neither strategy has worked sadly...

...which one should I wear for tonight?? Probably both...

[InChiefsHeaven]

i agree with Alphaman, that we could easily be 7-2... so from now on, in my delusional world... they are 7-2.

Sweet!! On top of the division, I like it. 7-2 sounds good to me...

[KCJohnny]

I don't like the amount of pressure it puts on our O, but at the same time, the team is designed to win with offense. They can't afford to make the mistakes they have been making. The are just as culpable as the D, and maybe even a little more so because the team is designed around them so much.

...

Thank you.

[KCTitus]

Sorry. I have 2 jerseys, Thomas and Hasty, whose power I try to conjure up by wearing them. I switch them out depending on the opponent, wheather or not we need better run D or better coverage. Neither strategy has worked sadly...

...which one should I wear for tonight?? Probably both...

Maybe that's not the problem...what kind of TV are you watching the game on?

[KCJohnny]

No, he's not. He never acknowledged it happened.

He still insists this team was patterned exactly after the Rams. At least we know that he doesn't have a clue what he's looking at on the TV. That's why he has to make up acronyms to describe it.

uh, check out the quote in my sig line by Dick Vermiel...

No one is suggesting we bring back Gun as HC. I am merely saying that this is the exact result I predicted four years ago.

KCJ
Unhappy to be losing; happy to be justified :deevee: :)

[Hoover]

We need a new HC.

DV had lots of fire last year, this year he has none.

It shows on the players.

[bobbything]

Three legit defensive players were cut or released or not signed (McGlockton, Hasty, Edwards)
McGlockton didn't do anything to help KC's defense when he was here. They were worse with him in the game. The chip on his shoulder is the only reason he weighed so much. When he left KC, the only time he had been on a playoff team was in 1993. The Ra!ders (why is a stupid emoticon inserted when I type that word??) rise, and subsequent Chiefs' fall, came in 1998. The same year McGlockton left the RaIders for the Chiefs. Coincidence?

Hasty was good while he was with KC but, let's be honest, he was a 35 year old DB when he left KC for Oakland (where he only played in one game then retired). Would it really have been a good idea to resign him at the time? Doubtful.

Not resigning Edwards was the biggest mistake. We instead signed Warfield to a huge contract. So far, Shottenheimer's Chargers have reaped the rewards of that decision.

I agree with Edwards, but not McGlockton or Hasty.

[Straight, No Chaser]

uh, check out the quote in my sig line by Dick Vermiel...

No one is suggesting we bring back Gun as HC. I am merely saying that this is the exact result I predicted four years ago.

KCJ

:wayne: :Lin: :wayne:

Anyone who praises the leadership of Marty (last two years) and Gunther over Vermiel is an idiot.


---->

[ROYC75]

There are many contributing factors why this season sucks.

[Baby Lee]

There are many contributing factors why this season sucks.
Geez, it's like a veil has been lifted. :rolleyes:

[ROYC75]

Geez, it's like a veil has been lifted. :rolleyes:

Even at that, some people on here still believe . :rolleyes:

[InChiefsHeaven]

Maybe that's not the problem...what kind of TV are you watching the game on?

It changes week to week. Tonight, I'll be at a bar...

...again, which Jersey? Run stopper pass rusher Thomas, or shut down CB Hasty??

...I'm just so confused...
:(

[ROYC75]

It changes week to week. Tonight, I'll be at a bar...

...again, which Jersey? Run stopper pass rusher Thomas, or shut down CB Hasty??

...I'm just so confused...
:(


I think he means Thomas Hasty ... or is it Hasty Thomas ?

I'm just so confused too ...

[nmt1]

IT'S THE RED ZONE OFFENSE!!!!!

I thought it was because Lamar Hunt pocketed $6 million.

[alanm]

None of this has anything to do with why KC lost...it's because of the slacker fans on this BB not wearing their lucky sweater/socks/jersey or cooking the correct pre-game meal or failing to watch the game altogether.I sorry.:deevee:

[KCJohnny]

McGlockton didn't do anything to help KC's defense when he was here. They were worse with him in the game. .

Bobby, thanks for your insights. The only thing I want to point out about McGlockton is that (a) due to his presence in the middle, both Clemons and Hicks were in 2bl digit sacks in 2000 (the team had 54 sacks, second in the AFC, compare to 39 (?) in 2001); and (b) the team paid McGlockton a TON of money NOT to play in KC. The plummett after DV's first 2 seasons was from a fair 18th to record-setting dead last.
KCJ

[KCJohnny]

:wayne: :Lin: :wayne:

Anyone who praises the leadership of Marty (last two years) and Gunther over Vermiel is an idiot.


---->

You sir, meet this criteria as well. Marty's 2nd to last year was 1997, where KC had the #1 D in the NFL (lowest points allowed) and finished 13-3.

And you also include Vermiel in your name-calling, seeing he has enough integrity to admit that Cunningham had a better record over the same span of time as DV's first 2 seasons (see sig line).

Have a nice day! :)

[Straight, No Chaser]

You sir, meet this criteria as well. Marty's 2nd to last year was 1997, where KC had the #1 D in the NFL (lowest points allowed) and finished 13-3.

The character of the team was desperate. Some characters on the team were highly questionable. The Marty era was "done". It was imperative a move was made given the entire "Marty" culture that permeated the organization. You can quote facts and figures all day long, the fact remains this organization was beginning to reek character-wise.

Marty had his chance and Gunther had his --it's over-- maybe you should get over it?


--->

[htismaqe]

The character of the team was desperate. Some characters on the team were highly questionable. The Marty era was "done". It was imperative a move was made given the entire "Marty" culture that permeated the organization. You can quote facts and figures all day long, the fact remains this organization was beginning to reek character-wise.

Marty had his chance and Gunther had his --it's over-- maybe you should get over it?


--->

Hell has a better chance of freezing over...

[KCJohnny]

Hell has a better chance of freezing over...

That's not fair. He said that "Anyone who praises the leadership of Marty (last two years) and Gunther over Vermiel is an idiot."

Marty's 2nd to last year was a 13-3 first round out. Sound familiar?
Vermiel himself admitted that it was a negative reflection on him that after 2 seasons he had failed to equal Cunningham's record.

DV will have 1 winning season in 4 by season's end. Hardly makes me an idiot for comparing Ws and Ls to previous regimes. Its been 4 years, man. :hmmm:

[KCJohnny]

Head to head, first 4 years coaching the KC Chiefs:
Schottenheimer: 39-24-1, .650, 4 straight 2nd place finishes.
Vermiel: 30-27, .515, a 1st, 2 third place finishes (IIRC) and maybe a last (as of now).

Vermiel inherited a team that was 7-9.
Schottenheimer inherited a team that was 4-11-1.

[htismaqe]

That's not fair. He said that "Anyone who praises the leadership of Marty (last two years) and Gunther over Vermiel is an idiot."

Marty's 2nd to last year was a 13-3 first round out. Sound familiar?
Vermiel himself admitted that it was a negative reflection on him that after 2 seasons he had failed to equal Cunningham's record.

DV will have 1 winning season in 4 by season's end. Hardly makes me an idiot for comparing Ws and Ls to previous regimes. Its been 4 years, man. :hmmm:

Yes, it has been 4 years. Exactly the reason you should get over the fact that the Marty/Gunther era is OVER.

You act as if somehow Vermeil being an utter failure here in KC makes everything that happened under Gunter and Marty OK.

better than bad ≠ good

[KCJohnny]

Yes, it has been 4 years. Exactly the reason you should get over the fact that the Marty/Gunther era is OVER.

You act as if somehow Vermeil being an utter failure here in KC makes everything that happened under Gunter and Marty OK.

better than bad ≠ good

No, DV failing means that adopting the polar opposite of Martyball isn't the answer, either. FWIW, its more fun to watch the DV Chiefs, and selling tix is what its all about, huh?

I won't name names (you know who you are) but I remember MANY regulars touting the DV regime, citing flushing Elvis, cutting McGlockton, not signing Edwards, 4 WR sets to set up the run, etc...as the answer. Some were very unkind in their opposition of the few voices of dissent (ahem). 4 years later, as ignorant and foolish as I am, my predictions have materialized in remarkable fashion. Of course the Marty/Gunther era is over. So's the Vermiel-can-get-us-to-the-big-dance-in-three-years experiment.

No hard feelings. But I was right. :thumb:

[the Talking Can]

and poor old martyr johhny is still at it....this shit is older than Denise/Gannon

Gunther was a terrible head coach, even he realizes that now

[Baby Lee]

Gunther was a terrible head coach, even he realizes that now
I think it's more accurate to characterize him as a rookie coach put in a terrible position. DT died. The team reacted horribly to his loss. The media went from lapdog to pitbull on a dime. Kurt and Jimmy were horrible coordinators.
Give him a defensive leader, decent coordinators, a less bloodthirsty media, and more than 2 years and he'd have been just fine.

[the Talking Can]

I think it's more accurate to characterize him as a rookie coach put in a terrible position. DT died. The team reacted horribly to his loss. The media went from lapdog to pitbull on a dime. Kurt and Jimmy were horrible coordinators.
Give him a defensive leader, decent coordinators, a less bloodthirsty media, and more than 2 years and he'd have been just fine.

hell, just swap his brain with Belicheck and he would've been great!

sorry, that was just a long list of excuses...

[Baby Lee]

hell, just swap his brain with Belicheck and he would've been great!

sorry, that was just a long list of excuses...
All I'm saying is, Dustin Hoffman made Ishtar. Doesn't make him Tom Green.

Losing DT was out of his hands.
The media going batsh!t insane on him was out of his hands.
His choice of coordinators was his call, unless CP used a heavy hand.

I'm not ready to close the book on him on the basis of such a small, unique sample.

BTW - how did Belicheck do in Cleveland?

[Baby Lee]

All I'm saying is, Dustin Hoffman made Ishtar. Doesn't make him Tom Green.

Losing DT was out of his hands.
The media going batsh!t insane on him was out of his hands.
His choice of coordinators was his call, unless CP used a heavy hand.

I'm not ready to close the book on him on the basis of such a small, unique sample.

BTW - how did Belicheck do in Cleveland?
[crickets]

[Alphaman]

IT'S THE RED ZONE OFFENSE!!!!!

That's 5 games out of 10 where we've turned th ball over in the Red Zone.

:deevee: :banghead: :cuss: :mad:


Granted, TG got mugged, but it still goes down as a TO.

[KCJohnny]

Hard to argue with you, A-man...