PDA

View Full Version : 16 years of King Carl. 18 different teams in the Super Bowl


BigRedChief
12-04-2004, 07:06 AM
Modified the orginal post of Vlad (it was wrong. surprised?:p) and checked it against superbowl.com.

1988 Washington and Denver 2
1989 San Franciso and Cincinatti 4
1990 no one new
1991 Giants and Buffalo 6
1992 no one new
1993 Dallas 7
1994 no one new
1995 San Diego Chargers 8
1996 Pittsburgh Steelers 9
1997 Green Bay and New England Patriots 11
1998 No one new from this list
1999 Atlanta Falcons 12
2000 St Louis Rams and Tennesse Titans 14
2001 Baltimore Ravens 15
2002 No one new from this list
2002 Oakland and Tampa Bay 17
2003 Carolina Panthers 18

Yup 18 different teams. Several teams have fell apart and been rebuilt to go back during that time such as Denver, Giants, and Patriots. Shoot even one expansion Franchise has been during Carl's 16 year 5 year plan.

Skip Towne
12-04-2004, 07:12 AM
So, what's your point?

cdcox
12-04-2004, 08:52 AM
Honestly, would you really want the Chiefs to have the record of the Bengals, Chargers, or Falcons, during this time period?

When considering regular season and post season combined, KC has been in the top half of teams during this period, no matter how you look at it. Now I am no Carl apologist, and believe we need some fresh blood in the front office. But some of you are so blinded by hate that you can't give credit where it is due.

nmt1
12-04-2004, 08:54 AM
You know what to do.

htismaqe
12-04-2004, 08:57 AM
Like I said before, we ALREADY know this. We got your drift WEEKS AGO.

Posting thread after thread after thread just makes people think you're going overboard and instead of listening to what you have to say, even though it may be valid, they just blow you off.

The more you do this, the more you galvanize the support for keeping the current regime together.

KcMizzou
12-04-2004, 09:02 AM
Like I said before, we ALREADY know this. We got your drift WEEKS AGO.

Hey, I'm all for change at this point.... but this is annoying as hell.

cash1000
12-04-2004, 09:07 AM
Closing the barn door after tens of millions of dollars of Chiefs fan's money has left their pocket and went into Carl's! Too late!

Braincase
12-04-2004, 09:11 AM
From a beancounter's perspective, he's one of the best in the league. From a fan's perpective, how could anyone with his tenure possibly be worse?

cash1000
12-04-2004, 09:21 AM
He's probably earned more money for Lamar in those 16 years than most of those other teams have!

nmt1
12-04-2004, 09:25 AM
I want to see if BigRedChief will sack up, stop going to the games, stop buying Chiefs merchandise and start organizing a boycott. Anything other than that is just being a whiny little bitch.

Either that or admit that he's got a stiffy for Carl Peterson. He doesn't seem to be able to make a single post without mentioning Carl.

Bowser
12-04-2004, 09:26 AM
I've got gas.

Deberg_1990
12-04-2004, 10:36 AM
Pretty sad that the Panthers have been to the Big Dance twice now during Carls tenure here and they were only born in 1995!!! Thats all you need to know!

cdcox
12-04-2004, 10:43 AM
Pretty sad that the Panthers have been to the Big Dance twice now during Carls tenure here and they were only born in 1995!!! Thats all you need to know!


Yeah, not only that, the Jags that came into the league the same year, have been to the dance 3 times. And the new version of the Browns has been to the Superbowl 12 times in just 5 years. Carl is obviously incompetent.

Alphaman
12-04-2004, 11:05 AM
Here's the difficulty. For the most part, Carl has produced a contender. Most of those teams have had a top 5 pick during that time (many on more than 1 occasion). A top 5 pick not only gets you blue chip player, but it basically moves every other pick up a round (i.e. your 2nd rounder is often a late 1st round talent).

Only once that I can recall have the Chiefs had a top 10 pick in that time, except for in his 1st year or 2.

BigChiefFan
12-04-2004, 11:13 AM
Here's the difficulty. For the most part, Carl has produced a contender. Most of those teams have had a top 5 pick during that time (many on more than 1 occasion). A top 5 pick not only gets you blue chip player, but it basically moves every other pick up a round (i.e. your 2nd rounder is often a late 1st round talent).

Only once that I can recall have the Chiefs had a top 10 pick in that time, except for in his 1st year or 2.Ryan Sims was the 6th overall pick.

Logical
12-04-2004, 12:08 PM
From a beancounter's perspective, he's one of the best in the league. From a fan's perpective, how could anyone with his tenure possibly be worse?:clap::clap:

Logical
12-04-2004, 12:13 PM
Here's the difficulty. For the most part, Carl has produced a contender. Most of those teams have had a top 5 pick during that time (many on more than 1 occasion). A top 5 pick not only gets you blue chip player, but it basically moves every other pick up a round (i.e. your 2nd rounder is often a late 1st round talent).

Only once that I can recall have the Chiefs had a top 10 pick in that time, except for in his 1st year or 2.Carl has had the 2nd pick in the draft Neil Smith, 4th pick in the draft Derrick Thomas (also a very close 6th pick in the draft Riyan Sims) in his tenure so that pretty much invalidates this point about most of those teams having a top 5 pick or even multiple picks.

Deberg_1990
12-04-2004, 12:14 PM
Carl has had the 2nd pick in the draft Neil Smith, 4th pick in the draft Derrick Thomas (also a very close 6th pick in the draft Riyan Sims) in his tenure so that pretty much invalidates this point about most of those teams having a top 5 pick or even multiple picks.

Carl didnt draft Neil Smith.

Deberg_1990
12-04-2004, 12:15 PM
Carl has had the 2nd pick in the draft Neil Smith, 4th pick in the draft Derrick Thomas (also a very close 6th pick in the draft Riyan Sims) in his tenure so that pretty much invalidates this point about most of those teams having a top 5 pick or even multiple picks.

Plus, The Arizona Cardinals always seem to have a top 5 pick. Look where it has gotten them. It doesnt matter what position you draft in, if you have turds doing the talent evaulation.

Logical
12-04-2004, 12:15 PM
I want to see if BigRedChief will sack up, stop going to the games, stop buying Chiefs merchandise and start organizing a boycott. Anything other than that is just being a whiny little bitch.

Either that or admit that he's got a stiffy for Carl Peterson. He doesn't seem to be able to make a single post without mentioning Carl.Why should he Carl is the source of all the problems as he is responsible for football operations on the field.

|Zach|
12-04-2004, 12:15 PM
Like I said before, we ALREADY know this. We got your drift WEEKS AGO.

Posting thread after thread after thread just makes people think you're going overboard and instead of listening to what you have to say, even though it may be valid, they just blow you off.

The more you do this, the more you galvanize the support for keeping the current regime together.What he said.

Logical
12-04-2004, 12:17 PM
Carl didnt draft Neil Smith.

I am not sure you are correct. I looked up when Carl started as GM and it was in 1988.

Brock
12-04-2004, 12:18 PM
I am not sure you are correct. I looked up when Carl started as GM and it was in 1988.

He was hired in Dec. of 98.

Logical
12-04-2004, 12:18 PM
Like I said before, we ALREADY know this. We got your drift WEEKS AGO.

Posting thread after thread after thread just makes people think you're going overboard and instead of listening to what you have to say, even though it may be valid, they just blow you off.

The more you do this, the more you galvanize the support for keeping the current regime together.

Why are you complaining, there is nothing much else football related to talk about concerning this dismal failure of a team we are watching this year. You prefer the stupid threads about Priest and his nachos?

Logical
12-04-2004, 12:19 PM
He was hired in Dec. of 98.

Assume you meant 88, ok, thanks. The site I looked did not list the month only the year.

Brock
12-04-2004, 12:22 PM
Assume you meant 88, ok, thanks.

Doh! :banghead:

bricks
12-04-2004, 12:24 PM
who was our Gm before Carl? Curious.

2bikemike
12-04-2004, 12:25 PM
Face it we are the Red Sox and the Cubs of the NFL. Well maybe not the Red Sox they just won their Championship.

What I wanna know is who did Lamar piss off. Did it involve a farm animal or a digruntled player?

Calcountry
12-04-2004, 01:20 PM
Honestly, would you really want the Chiefs to have the record of the Bengals, Chargers, or Falcons, during this time period?

When considering regular season and post season combined, KC has been in the top half of teams during this period, no matter how you look at it. Now I am no Carl apologist, and believe we need some fresh blood in the front office. But some of you are so blinded by hate that you can't give credit where it is due.
If all you ever want is an entertaining, competitive product that is capbably of making the playoffs every 3rd year then Carl is your man.

But the Period of 1968 through 1978, what was our record?

How many superbowls did we win?

Which is a more stomachable stretch of time?

BigChiefFan
12-04-2004, 01:24 PM
who was our Gm before Carl? Curious.
Jack Steadman.

Rausch
12-04-2004, 01:26 PM
So, do all these teams have great coaches, great GM's, both, or none of the above?...

BigChiefFan
12-04-2004, 01:29 PM
So, do all these teams have great coaches, great GM's, both, or none of the above?...
Great players, which can be attributed to the GM.

Rausch
12-04-2004, 01:40 PM
Great players, which can be attributed to the GM.

Cowher is the GM in Pitt...and I'd say the Rat pretty much is in Denber as well...

tk13
12-04-2004, 02:09 PM
You know there are 8 billion great arguments against Carl... I don't know, this just doesn't seem like one of them to me. We could get into this massive statistical discussion and bring all these numbers both good and bad. For instance, the Chiefs I believe are only 1 of 2 teams to have had three first round-byes in the playoffs over the last 10 years. I do believe the Chiefs are the only franchise over the last 10 years to field both a #1 offense and #1 defense at some point, not to mention twice each. In almost half of the last 10 years the Chiefs have led the league in offense or defense. During this span listed in the topic header, only 10 teams have actually won a Super Bowl, that means 22 teams haven't. I guess it depends on what you consider success. Is getting to the Super Bowl and losing better than having a great record than losing in the playoffs? I don't know, I guess that's up for discussion....

tk13
12-04-2004, 02:17 PM
I forget all the exact numbers, but in reality there's a group of 16 (half) of the NFL's teams that account for something like 85% of all Super Bowl appearances.... and the Chiefs are included in that group. The other half of the league accounts for the other 15% some odd percent of SB appearances. It's funny how that works.

BigChiefFan
12-04-2004, 02:22 PM
Cowher is the GM in Pitt...and I'd say the Rat pretty much is in Denber as well...
They've both been to the Super Bowl in recent years,too.

Calcountry
12-04-2004, 02:23 PM
I forget all the exact numbers, but in reality there's a group of 16 (half) of the NFL's teams that account for something like 85% of all Super Bowl appearances.... and the Chiefs are included in that group. The other half of the league accounts for the other 15% some odd percent of SB appearances. It's funny how that works.
Its a conspiracy.

Wile_E_Coyote
12-04-2004, 02:41 PM
you know if Carl has a bad track record at what point is it his bosses fault..the peter principle(may not be proper use of the term)


if you put a dog behind the wheel of a car you don't beat the pouch because it can't drive you home because your to drunk to drive...that's just an example taken out of thin air

cdcox
12-04-2004, 03:15 PM
If all you ever want is an entertaining, competitive product that is capbably of making the playoffs every 3rd year then Carl is your man.

But the Period of 1968 through 1978, what was our record?

How many superbowls did we win?

Which is a more stomachable stretch of time?

If Steadman had left in 1978 I would grant your point. But we had another 10 years, 10 YEARS, of suffering to go.

Taking the period that Steadman was GM (up through 1988) we won a SuperBowl, went to another, and had great teams many other years. But we had stunk for so long (basically the entire period 1974-1988) that I was crying for him to go at least 8 years before he was finally promoted to a harmless position. Despite the SB victories, we were no longer putting a competetive team on the field and worse, it appeared that we were trying to lose, so inept were the decisions. By the time he was gone, the Super Bowl victories were a distant memory. Only the bitter, sour bile of perennial loser remained.

So:

Jack Steadman needed to go long before he was finally booted upstrairs, despite the Super Bowls. I feel the urge to spit when I say his name.

Carl should go too. He is no longer credible as a leader that is going to help us win a Super Bowl. But were he to leave in the next couple years, I would always respect him for returning winning football to Kansas City.

Alphaman
12-04-2004, 03:36 PM
Ryan Sims was the 6th overall pick.


That's the one I was refering to. In his first year he took DT with the 4th pick. I don't think he drafted Neil Smith.

Alphaman
12-04-2004, 03:40 PM
Carl has had the 2nd pick in the draft Neil Smith, 4th pick in the draft Derrick Thomas (also a very close 6th pick in the draft Riyan Sims) in his tenure so that pretty much invalidates this point about most of those teams having a top 5 pick or even multiple picks.

Actually no it doesn't. First get your facts straight. Smith was taken the year before Carl and Marty got here. DT was their first pick in their first year. That's alot of years between DT and Sims. Like I said, Carl has fielded competitive teams most of the years he's been here. Some have been very bad, (this year for example) some have been very good, (last year for example0, but most have been competitive.

Otter
12-04-2004, 04:39 PM
Cowher is the GM in Pitt...and I'd say the Rat pretty much is in Denber as well...

I'm gonna start calling you Titus Junior. ROFL

BigRedChief
12-04-2004, 06:51 PM
I want to see if BigRedChief will sack up, stop going to the games, stop buying Chiefs merchandise and start organizing a boycott. Anything other than that is just being a whiny little bitch.

Either that or admit that he's got a stiffy for Carl Peterson. He doesn't seem to be able to make a single post without mentioning Carl.

I have said on several occasions that I'm a sucker. I keep paying the Chiefs my 2k a year for tickets. 20 bucks to park etc. Even though the defense sucks and can't stop anything I'll still be in my seat cheering them on. If they go 3-13 I'll still be there. The Chiefs are my team and I can't stay away. Just mark me up as a whiny bitch who is also a moron.

BigRedChief
12-04-2004, 06:55 PM
Like I said before, we ALREADY know this. We got your drift WEEKS AGO.

Posting thread after thread after thread just makes people think you're going overboard and instead of listening to what you have to say, even though it may be valid, they just blow you off.

The more you do this, the more you galvanize the support for keeping the current regime together.

You don't really think that what we say here on this BB matters as to whether King Carl leaves or not do you?

I have over 20 threads with 1000+ views so I think someone is interested in what I have to say.

Are you saying that I should self censor my opinions so as not to piss people off?

Logical
12-04-2004, 08:33 PM
Actually no it doesn't. First get your facts straight. Smith was taken the year before Carl and Marty got here. DT was their first pick in their first year. That's alot of years between DT and Sims. Like I said, Carl has fielded competitive teams most of the years he's been here. Some have been very bad, (this year for example) some have been very good, (last year for example0, but most have been competitive.

Although you are technically correct, Carl came in 88 so even though he did not draft him (which makes his drafting record even worse) he had the benefit of a pick that was the 2nd in the entire draft playing for his teams. That fact that he actually did not draft him does not change that fact.

Logical
12-04-2004, 08:41 PM
You don't really think that what we say here on this BB matters as to whether King Carl leaves or not do you?

I have over 20 threads with 1000+ views so I think someone is interested in what I have to say.

Are you saying that I should self censor my opinions so as not to piss people off?

Well said, very well said. :clap: Rep

Rausch
12-04-2004, 08:49 PM
I'm gonna start calling you Titus Junior. ROFL

I take that as a compliment...

Alphaman
12-04-2004, 09:53 PM
Although you are technically correct, Carl came in 88 so even though he did not draft him (which makes his drafting record even worse) he had the benefit of a pick that was the 2nd in the entire draft playing for his teams. That fact that he actually did not draft him does not change that fact.


Like I said, what he did with that pick and the nuber 4 pick the next year was develop a very competitive team. For the majority of Carl's 16 years, he has fielded a very competitive team that was either in the playoffs or in the hunt. In his tenure, Arrowhead has been a very difficult place for opponents. Some years have been horrible, some have been fantastic (record wise). But over the course of his 16 years, Carl has been as good as most other GMs as far as records go.

Logical
12-04-2004, 09:57 PM
Like I said, what he did with that pick and the nuber 4 pick the next year was develop a very competitive team. For the majority of Carl's 16 years, he has fielded a very competitive team that was either in the playoffs or in the hunt. In his tenure, Arrowhead has been a very difficult place for opponents. Some years have been horrible, some have been fantastic (record wise). But over the course of his 16 years, Carl has been as good as most other GMs as far as records go.

Competetive yes but that is not good enough if you are going to be around 16 years, you need to be making it to the big game. He should be fired for his incompetence but the Hunts only care that the seats are filled.

BigChiefFan
12-04-2004, 10:00 PM
Like I said, what he did with that pick and the nuber 4 pick the next year was develop a very competitive team. For the majority of Carl's 16 years, he has fielded a very competitive team that was either in the playoffs or in the hunt. In his tenure, Arrowhead has been a very difficult place for opponents. Some years have been horrible, some have been fantastic (record wise). But over the course of his 16 years, Carl has been as good as most other GMs as far as records go.In the past 7 years we've only made the playoffs once. That's nothing worthy of praise IMO.

Alphaman
12-04-2004, 10:10 PM
In the past 7 years we've only made the playoffs once. That's nothing worthy of praise IMO.

Did I say worthy of praise? I said that he fielded a competitive team and that over the course of his tenure, he had done as well as most other GMs.

shaneo69
12-04-2004, 10:29 PM
I take that as a compliment...

:stupid:

BigChiefFan
12-04-2004, 10:30 PM
Did I say worthy of praise? I said that he fielded a competitive team and that over the course of his tenure, he had done as well as most other GMs.Name me ONE other GM in the NFL that has had his tenure. You can't compare anybody to him, because every other GM that has failed has already been shown the door or are fairly new with their current team. Nobody gets 16 years. Again, only making the playoffs ONCE in 7 years is NOT competitive.