PDA

View Full Version : MARTYBALL means WINNING


2bikemike
12-28-2004, 02:37 AM
MARTYBALL means WINNING

Chargers may look different, but for Schottenheimer, it's about the result

By RANDY COVITZ The Kansas City Star


Marty Schottenheimer stood in the lower level of Arrowhead Stadium, wearing a bright yellow San Diego Chargers sweatshirt that still looked odd on him.

The Chargers had just defeated the Chiefs for their fifth straight win in what would become an eight-game winning streak. Just a few steps from the Kansas City locker room, former players and staff members came by to congratulate Schottenheimer on the victory and on the birth of a grandson.

Schottenheimer held it together until he received a bear hug from Chiefs president Carl Peterson. Schottenheimer's eyes began to moisten and his voice cracked, as it often did during emotional moments as head coach of the Chiefs during 1989-98.

“The best 10 years of my life were in Kansas City,” Schottenheimer said quietly of a decade in which the Chiefs won 101 games and qualified for the playoffs seven times.

If that was the case, this year in San Diego can't be too far behind.

Just a year ago, in Schottenheimer's second season in San Diego, the Chargers went 4-12 for the worst record in the NFL. It was just the second losing season of Schottenheimer's 18 years as an NFL head coach, and he was generally regarded as the prime contender to be fired in 2004.

Instead, Schottenheimer has gone from the hot seat to the leading candidate for honors as NFL coach of the year. He has led the Chargers, 11-4, to their first AFC West title since 1994 and first playoff berth since 1995.

It's also Schottenheimer's first winning season and trip to the playoffs since the Chiefs went 13-3 in 1997.

“All of those things are window dressing,” Schottenheimer said of the accolades he's receiving. “There's a lot of attention and focus on us right now. It has been a terrific experience.

“But we are a work in progress, and our players are continuing to develop and to learn and to understand the way you have to do things if you want to be successful in the National Football League.”

***

Until this season, some wondered whether the NFL had passed Schottenheimer by. After saying it was time to move on and resigning from the Chiefs following a 7-9 season in 1998, Schottenheimer spent two seasons as an ESPN studio analyst. He returned to the sideline in 2001 for intrusive owner Daniel Snyder at Washington, where his team started 0-5. He then won five straight and finished 8-8 only to be fired in favor of Steve Spurrier, who lasted two years.

Instead of living on Snyder's money and playing golf near his North Carolina home, Schottenheimer signed a four-year contract with the woeful Chargers. They were coming off 1-15 and 5-11 seasons, embroiled in a stadium controversy with the city and considered a possibility to relocate to Los Angeles.

The Chargers went 8-8 under Schottenheimer in 2002 before hitting rock bottom last year. The team's image and prospects were so forlorn that Eli Manning, whom the Chargers selected with the first pick of the draft, refused to go to San Diego, forcing a trade that turned out to be a blessing in disguise.

“The worst part was, try as hard as I did and we did, I couldn't seem to get the message across that needed to be understood,” said Schottenheimer, 61.

But general manager A.J. Smith, who inherited Schottenheimer as coach after the death of John Butler, believed in him.

“Two years was not enough time for someone like coach Schottenheimer, with his previous record,” Smith said. “I needed to do a better job of getting players. We put the rumors to rest that we were looking for a head coach, and we brought in some players in all kinds of different ways. We hired (defensive coordinator) Wade Phillips and fixed the defense, and went into the season optimistic.”

Schottenheimer, who values his ability as a problem solver above all else, gutted the roster. The Chargers, taking the approach Schottenheimer called “addition by subtraction,” cut their ties with old favorites who had worn out their welcome. They rebuilt the team, bringing in 21 new players to the 53-man active roster, including an all-new offensive line as Schottenheimer found players who bought into his mantra of hard work, discipline and his signature “one play at a time.”

“Some things never change with that guy,” said linebacker Donnie Edwards, who was drafted by Schottenheimer in Kansas City in 1996 and signed with the Chargers as a free agent in 2001 when San Diego made him a better offer. “ ‘One play at a time' forever in my head will be linked to Marty Schottenheimer. That's the good thing about this team. They truly believe in this coach.

“All the things he changed throughout this year really helped us out. I think the guys really believe in him, and that's why we are where we are.”

***

While some things never change, others do. Take Martyball, for example.

It's not run, run, pass, punt and let the defense win the game for you anymore. The Chargers pass like crazy now. They call end-arounds, halfback passes, fake punts and direct snaps to running back LaDainian Tomlinson. No longer is Martyball a power-running-game offense that could win games but not championships in Kansas City.

“I consider Martyball to be primarily, find out what your players do best and then go do that, because it gives you the better opportunity to be successful,” Schottenheimer said. “Certainly, ball security is pre-eminent in everything that we do. But we're dramatically different from the perception of Martyball.

“You've got to throw it to be successful. You have to be able to run it at times in the game, but the way the rules are set up, you spin your wheels playing Martyball. It's a thing of the past. The rules are designed to throw the ball.”

And that's where Schottenheimer may have gotten his biggest break of 2003. The Chargers traded the rights to Manning to the Giants for quarterback Philip Rivers, the fourth pick in the draft, with the expectation he would be their starter. But Rivers held out for nearly the entire preseason, enabling Drew Brees, who had been banished to the bench and was in the final year of his contract, to have his breakout season.

Brees has thrown 27 touchdown passes and just seven interceptions for the Chargers, who average 28 points per game, third only to Indianapolis and Kansas City.

Had Rivers signed, he might have been Ben Roethlisberger. Or he might have been Eli Manning.

“We were going to open it to competition,” Schottenheimer said of Rivers' chances of starting, “and he would have had a better opportunity. The outcome might have been the same.”

***

Schottenheimer, who is in the third year of his four-year contract that averages $2.5 million a year, is starting to discuss an extension with the Chargers that would run through the 2007 season.

But first comes the regular-season finale against the Chiefs on Sunday and then the playoffs. The postseason has not been kind to Schottenheimer, who is 5-11 in the playoffs, including 3-7 in Kansas City despite having home-field advantage throughout in 1995 and 1997.

If the Chargers can go deep in the postseason, Schottenheimer's team just may capture the imagination of a community as it did in Kansas City. The Chargers' first three games this season were blacked out on local television. Now, the fans in San Diego are starting to buy into the product, as four of the last five home games, including Sunday's against the Chiefs, have sold out.

It reminds Schottenheimer of the early days in Kansas City.

“To me, that's the most important part of it,” he said. “The greatest satisfaction you get as a football coach is you have an opportunity to work, prepare a group, have them go out and have some success, and you get to share that with your coaching staff, with your players, with your fans, and it's almost as though you took the experience and the gratification and you multiplied it by the people you're around.

“Kansas City was terrific. That was a cherished time for my family, when you have an opportunity to work for somebody like Lamar Hunt and with a guy like Carl, who you know has exactly the same objective you have. It was 10 successful years, albeit without the championship.”

To reach Randy Covitz, NFL writer for The Star, call (816) 234-4796 or send e-mail to

2bikemike
12-28-2004, 02:39 AM
Even if San Diego were to start winning like the Chiefs did in the 90's I don't think the Chargers will ever match the intensity of KC fans.

2bikemike
12-28-2004, 02:43 AM
Marty by the numbers


12

Seasons making the playoffs, tops among active NFL coaches

18

Full seasons

as an NFL

head coach

176

Career wins,

tops among active coaches

.313

Career winning percentage

in playoffs

.600

Career winning percentage in regular season

Fairplay
12-28-2004, 02:56 AM
More from the article left out...........

“Kansas City was terrific. That was a cherished time for my family, when you have an opportunity to work for somebody like Lamar Hunt and with a guy like Carl, who you know has exactly the same objective you have. It was 10 successful years, albeit without the championship.”
"That was great, Carl and i promised Kansas City and a Superbowl team when i first started, guess what, never happened!" Laughed Marty hesterically. Marty continued "Carl would say anything to get the stadium sold out. Carl got his bonus from Lamar every year, you can count on that."

WebGem
12-28-2004, 03:55 AM
Chiefs fans are the f*cking shit.

jayhawktx
12-28-2004, 05:59 AM
All those years of Marty and his ultra conservative play calling and choking in the playoffs are a nightmare to me. If he has changed his stripes now and has become the "new" Marty then, to me, that is even further insult to Chiefs fans because if he had become the "new" Marty while still in KC then the Chiefs likely would have won a Super Bowl.

Skip Towne
12-28-2004, 06:53 AM
According to a poll taken in KC a couple of years ago, Marty is the most popular coach the Chiefs have ever had. That includes Hank Stram. He brought us back from the depths of the NFL.

StcChief
12-28-2004, 08:28 AM
San Diego fans don't have a reason to be intense.
Hang ten, dude.

Typical of SoCal, too much sun. too many other distractions other than football.

Barret
12-28-2004, 09:14 AM
Schottenheimer, who values his ability as a problem solver above all else, gutted the roster. The Chargers, taking the approach Schottenheimer called “addition by subtraction,” cut their ties with old favorites who had worn out their welcome. They rebuilt the team, bringing in 21 new players to the 53-man active roster, including an all-new offensive line as Schottenheimer found players who bought into his mantra of hard work, discipline and his signature “one play at a time.”

Uhm, do you ever think that Vermeil will "gut the roster" and cut his "ties with old favorites" to rebuild a team???

2bikemike
12-28-2004, 09:32 AM
Schottenheimer, who values his ability as a problem solver above all else, gutted the roster. The Chargers, taking the approach Schottenheimer called “addition by subtraction,” cut their ties with old favorites who had worn out their welcome. They rebuilt the team, bringing in 21 new players to the 53-man active roster, including an all-new offensive line as Schottenheimer found players who bought into his mantra of hard work, discipline and his signature “one play at a time.”

Uhm, do you ever think that Vermeil will "gut the roster" and cut his "ties with old favorites" to rebuild a team???

Didn't he more or less do that? Every coach brings in his proto type guys. Even Gunther tried to do this. He had a vision of big tall rangy recievers thats why he let J. Horn go.

Mile High Mania
12-28-2004, 10:44 AM
Marty is a good coach... that's never really been a question. The question is what will he do now that his team is in the playoffs?

Marty has milked every ounce of production from LT, Gates and Brees. They need the receivers to step up in the playoffs and that defense needs to hold tight.

Gates is unreal right now, looks like a force for years to come in the NFL. Again, the AFC West has the two best TEs in the game.... DEN needs to go find another one.

I suggest looking in the AFC East and bringing in Randy McMichael.

Predarat
12-28-2004, 11:06 AM
Ill be interested to see it the 'new' Marty shows up in the playoffs.

Calcountry
12-28-2004, 11:12 AM
Marty is a good coach... that's never really been a question. The question is what will he do now that his team is in the playoffs?

Marty has milked every ounce of production from Lawrence Taylor , Gates and Brees. They need the receivers to step up in the playoffs and that defense needs to hold tight.

Gates is unreal right now, looks like a force for years to come in the NFL. Again, the AFC West has the two best TEs in the game.... DEN needs to go find another one.

I suggest looking in the AFC East and bringing in Randy McMichael.
He will over coach them, like he did when he ran the ball one more time with Ernest Bynar.

htismaqe
12-28-2004, 11:23 AM
All those years of Marty and his ultra conservative play calling and choking in the playoffs are a nightmare to me. If he has changed his stripes now and has become the "new" Marty then, to me, that is even further insult to Chiefs fans because if he had become the "new" Marty while still in KC then the Chiefs likely would have won a Super Bowl.

EXCELLENT post.

Have fun losing in the playoffs, Marty.

chiefs4me
12-28-2004, 11:32 AM
I have no doubt that the chargers will choke in the playoffs,,and marty will use all timeouts and leave them none. And won't go for the down when he needs to,,and go for the down when he doesn't need to. The chargers are not going anywhere.

Calcountry
12-28-2004, 11:44 AM
All those years of Marty and his ultra conservative play calling and choking in the playoffs are a nightmare to me. If he has changed his stripes now and has become the "new" Marty then, to me, that is even further insult to Chiefs fans because if he had become the "new" Marty while still in KC then the Chiefs likely would have won a Super Bowl.
Exactly why he should take the term "Martyball" and shove it up his ass.

If he is being more creative, and agressive in his philosophy, then that IS NOT "Martyball"

Everytime I hear the term Martyball, it pisses me off.

What he played in KC was SHORTYBALL, he always came up short. Shortenheimer.

38yrsfan
12-28-2004, 11:59 AM
I found it incredible that he never recognized and learned from his playoff losses that his play-calling predictability needed to be worked on when it was post-season time!

Deberg_1990
12-28-2004, 12:15 PM
Marty is a good coach and probably always will be. His football philosphy is fundamentally sound. Run the football, control the clock, play solid defense and special teams. This will always win alot of games in the NFL. The problem when he gets to the Post-season is he always plays that same way (conservative) while his opponents are playing "go for the throat" football. I saw the same thing in last weeks game against the Colts, he held up and they settled for Field Goals at critical times instead of getting the 6 points that they really needed to win. same ole Marty....

Dave Lane
12-28-2004, 12:57 PM
I hope this dissappears off the front page before we lose another game and we have a KCJ sighting. This would be grist for his mill. I can't stand the sight of Marty. That f*cking piece of sh*t m*therf*cker choked worse than Debbie doing Dallas.

The play calling was so bad I can't even think about it without ruining my day. If that jackass hadn't been the OC and HC at the same time we would have had a trophy or two here in KC.

Dave

~and no, Paul Hackett was not an OC.

chileanbolt
12-28-2004, 12:57 PM
I just wanted to let you guys know that a lot of us Chargers fans are

still not too excited about shotty. The thing about the whole Martyball

being done with kind of happened by accident. When LT got hurt he

became less effective, so Cam (O coordinator) decided to throw the ball

more. No one liked the whole Martyball crap he started even with the

goddy numbers LT was putting up because like you guys said it was

boring and predictable and we lost a lot. Brees is the main reason why

Marty changed his colors. He basically changed it because it was

working and he needed a good season to save his job. I don't know if its

old age or just that he didn't want to change what was working but all

of a sudden he wants to do whats neccisary to keep his job

ChiefsFire
12-28-2004, 01:01 PM
I just wanted to let you guys know that a lot of us Chargers fans are

still not too excited about shotty. The thing about the whole Martyball

being done with kind of happened by accident. When Lawrence Taylor got hurt he

became less effective, so Cam (O coordinator) decided to throw the ball

more. No one liked the whole Martyball crap he started even with the

goddy numbers Lawrence Taylor was putting up because like you guys said it was

boring and predictable and we lost a lot. Brees is the main reason why

Marty changed his colors. He basically changed it because it was

working and he needed a good season to save his job. I don't know if its

old age or just that he didn't want to change what was working but all

of a sudden he wants to do whats neccisary to keep his job


Lawrence Taylor??? :spock:

Spott
12-28-2004, 01:27 PM
How many sacks did Lawrence Taylor have for SD this year?

go bowe
12-28-2004, 01:51 PM
i saw LT on the sopranos last night (or was it the night before?)...

Lzen
12-28-2004, 02:04 PM
I loved Marty S. when he was in KC. He was always a great coach......in the regular season. Too bad he was terrible in the playoffs. I agree with this:

All those years of Marty and his ultra conservative play calling and choking in the playoffs are a nightmare to me. If he has changed his stripes now and has become the "new" Marty then, to me, that is even further insult to Chiefs fans because if he had become the "new" Marty while still in KC then the Chiefs likely would have won a Super Bowl.


It will be interesting to see how the Chargers do in the playoffs.


“Some things never change with that guy,” said linebacker Donnie Edwards, who was drafted by Schottenheimer in Kansas City in 1996 and signed with the Chargers as a free agent in 2001 when San Diego made him a better offer.

That's BS. Didn't KC offer him about the same? About 3 mil per year? Didn't he just end up settling for San Diego because he couldn't swallow his pride after he discovered that nobody would pay him in FA what he was asking, about 6 mil per year?

chileanbolt
12-28-2004, 02:07 PM
i put L T and it typed that out...L T...who programmed that to happen? thats too funny

whoman69
12-28-2004, 02:11 PM
Marty's teams never have the ability to kill a wounded team. They keep them in the game. He gets very conservative with a lead in the playoffs while other teams keep trying to win, he is trying not to lose.

Baby Lee
12-28-2004, 02:19 PM
EXCELLENT post.

Have fun losing in the playoffs, Marty.
Bwahahaha, those silly Chargers, with their division title and their winning streaks, and their quality play. They may have beaten our ass, but we have Vermeil. Vermeil will never lose in the playoffs like Marty, . . Oh that's right. We were one and out last year. That's OK, we usually don't go, and if our losing ways keep up, we'll NEVER lose on national TV again. But that's OK, I've set my world to where, if the Chargers do anything but win the SB, I can still laugh.

chileanbolt
12-28-2004, 02:29 PM
anything but win the Sb wow thats pretty tough to keep u from laughing

BreesLightning
12-28-2004, 02:30 PM
Bwahahaha, those silly Chargers, with their division title and their winning streaks, and their quality play. They may have beaten our ass, but we have Vermeil. Vermeil will never lose in the playoffs like Marty, . . Oh that's right. We were one and out last year. That's OK, we usually don't go, and if our losing ways keep up, we'll NEVER lose on national TV again. But that's OK, I've set my world to where, if the Chargers do anything but win the SB, I can still laugh.

My nomination for ChiefsPlanet Post Of The Year award.

Baby Lee
12-28-2004, 02:36 PM
anything but win the Sb wow thats pretty tough to keep u from laughing
You just don't understand, we Chiefs fans have evolved from the tired concept of playing to the best of your ability. We spit on tired concepts like 'overacheiving' or 'having a sound philosophy.' We have risen to the new consciousness where you suck ass like never before in the hopes that some old dude has a magic bag that'll assure us a SB championship from out of the blue at some point. We want to be boo-hooed into a SB, not earn it.

chileanbolt
12-28-2004, 02:41 PM
I know how you guys feel, I mean come on we have had a revolving door of coaches and we thought marty would be the same after going 4-12. It starts with the players and the coach and to realize each persons ability and I think Marty just kind of found it by chance..


Breeslightning: did you ever notice when you put L T without the spaces they just make it lawerence taylor, that got me good :)

Baby Lee
12-28-2004, 02:43 PM
Breeslightning: did you ever notice when you put L T without the spaces they just make it lawerence taylor, that got me good :)
I believe that is a bit of operant conditioning by a moderator who feels strongly that the only L.T. ever played for the NY Giants.

chileanbolt
12-28-2004, 02:47 PM
everyone is entitled to their opinions, I just choose the classier, less coked out version

unlurking
12-28-2004, 02:59 PM
I believe that is a bit of operant conditioning by a moderator who feels strongly that the only L.T. ever played for the NY Giants.
I understand the thought, but it bothers me when talking about Left Tackle.

:(

el borracho
12-28-2004, 03:04 PM
I still like Schottenheimer as a coach. He consistently gets more production out of inferior players. I still want the Chiefs to win this Sunday but at this point I hope the Chargers win the SuperBowl.

chileanbolt
12-28-2004, 03:09 PM
Thanks borracho I think if there is any team in our division that I would like to see win one it would be the chiefs. Now that the Seahawks left hehe

milkman
12-29-2004, 08:02 AM
Marty by the numbers

176

Career wins,

tops among active coaches


21 more wins without a SB trip will surpass Chuck Knox as the HC to have won the most games to never have played in a league championship game (not to be confused with conference championship).

milkman
12-29-2004, 08:06 AM
Marty by the numbers


12

Seasons making the playoffs, tops among active NFL coaches

18

Full seasons

as an NFL

head coach

176

Career wins,

tops among active coaches

.313

Career winning percentage

in playoffs

.600

Career winning percentage in regular season

Johnny Proctor would love these stats.

But I wonder if the NFL keeps stats that show how many times a HC has come from ahead to lose.
My money would be on Martyocre to be at, or near, the top of the list.

That game against Indy on Sunday was classic Martyocre.

Baby Lee
12-29-2004, 08:20 AM
But I wonder if the NFL keeps stats that show how many times a HC has come from ahead to lose.
Yet another ironic stat from a fan of the team that lead or was tied in the 4th quarter in all of our losses this year. :thumb:

milkman
12-29-2004, 08:34 AM
Yet another ironic stat from a fan of the team that lead or was tied in the 4th quarter in all of our losses this year. :thumb:

I have about the same feeling for Dick as I do for Marty.

I am a fan of the Chiefs, but I haven't been happy about the HCs since Hank, with the exception of John Macovic, who I thought would be a good HC.

TEX
12-29-2004, 09:00 AM
Winning with "Martyball" has its best chance without the Three Stooges... :hmmm:

milkman
12-29-2004, 09:19 AM
Winning with "Martyball" has its best chance without the Three Stooges... :hmmm:

Marty did have some poor OCs during his days with the Chiefs.
Joe Pendry, Paul Hackett, and of course Jimmy Raye.

But he also had some pretty good DCs.
Bill Cowher and Gun.
Dave Adolf was the one bad one he hired.

I can't remember ST coaches.

The point here though, is that The Three Stooges were unique to Gun's reign as HC.
Raye, Marty's little brother, and Mike Stock.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 11:27 AM
Bwahahaha, those silly Chargers, with their division title and their winning streaks, and their quality play. They may have beaten our ass, but we have Vermeil. Vermeil will never lose in the playoffs like Marty, . . Oh that's right. We were one and out last year. That's OK, we usually don't go, and if our losing ways keep up, we'll NEVER lose on national TV again. But that's OK, I've set my world to where, if the Chargers do anything but win the SB, I can still laugh.

You're a hoot.

We did the EXACT same thing the Chargers are doing this year -- we did it twice. And you know what we have to show for it?

NOTHING.

Somehow, the fact that Vermeil hasn't won a playoff game here makes it OK that Marty couldn't get it done here either? Mediocrity at it's finest.

Get it through your head:

This has nothing to do with Vermeil.

I don't care what Vermeil does here anymore, frankly I want him gone. But that doesn't change the fact that Marty is a career also-ran.

OldTownChief
12-29-2004, 11:31 AM
I believe that is a bit of operant conditioning by a moderator who feels strongly that the only L.T. ever played for the NY Giants.

What about our kicker... LT

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 11:31 AM
You just don't understand, we Chiefs fans have evolved from the tired concept of playing to the best of your ability. We spit on tired concepts like 'overacheiving' or 'having a sound philosophy.' We have risen to the new consciousness where you suck ass like never before in the hopes that some old dude has a magic bag that'll assure us a SB championship from out of the blue at some point. We want to be boo-hooed into a SB, not earn it.

Is this what it has come to? Acting like Proctor?

I challenge you to remove the bitterness from that post and actually have any facts to stand on. There isn't a single person here that defended Vermeil over Marty in 2000 that will still defend Vermeil.

The simple fact is that, when Vermeil came here, he had a Super Bowl pedigree. That is a FACT. He hasn't gotten it done here, which makes him no better than Marty.

Of course, that's what Marty fans are all about. It doesn't matter if you ever win a Super Bowl. We can be proud of holding records for regular season wins while simultaneously setting the standard for playoff futility.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to earn your way into a Super Bowl when you'll never get there in the 1st place.

BreesLightning
12-29-2004, 11:58 AM
Is this what it has come to? Acting like Proctor?

I challenge you to remove the bitterness from that post and actually have any facts to stand on. There isn't a single person here that defended Vermeil over Marty in 2000 that will still defend Vermeil.

The simple fact is that, when Vermeil came here, he had a Super Bowl pedigree. That is a FACT. He hasn't gotten it done here, which makes him no better than Marty.

Of course, that's what Marty fans are all about. It doesn't matter if you ever win a Super Bowl. We can be proud of holding records for regular season wins while simultaneously setting the standard for playoff futility.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to earn your way into a Super Bowl when you'll never get there in the 1st place.

I think what he was trying to say was that having a chance to atleast

COMPETE for the superbowl, sure as hell beats being near the cellar of

your division. Sure, Marty's teams have had their share of choking but

you also have to admit that Marty's teams have had ALOT of bad luck

along the way in the postseason including have to deal with John Elway

a few times. When you also look at where each those teams was

before Marty arrived, you have to atleast appreciate where he took

them to. Each of those organizations were in shambles when he got

there.

I'd hate to see what you all would say if Marty did end up winning a

superbowl with the Chargers. That would be your worst nightmare as it

would only serve to validate the entire Chiefs' organizations' futility with

ANY coach at the helm over the last few decades. I guess that's why

most of you are rooting against him. I don't say I blame you....

OldTownChief
12-29-2004, 12:02 PM
I think what he was trying to say was that having a chance to atleast

COMPETE for the superbowl, sure as hell beats being near the cellar of

your division. Sure, Marty's teams have had their share of choking but

you also have to admit that Marty's teams have had ALOT of bad luck

along the way in the postseason including have to deal with John Elway

a few times. When you also look at where each those teams was

before Marty arrived, you have to atleast appreciate where he took

them to. Each of those organizations were in shambles when he got

there.

I'd hate to see what you all would say if Marty did end up winning a

superbowl with the Chargers. That would be your worst nightmare as it

would only serve to validate the entire Chiefs' organizations' futility with

ANY coach at the helm over the last few decades. I guess that's why

most of you are rooting against him. I don't say I blame you....


You bring up some good points. I for one, am rooting for Marty to go all the way.

ChiefsCountry
12-29-2004, 12:18 PM
I wonder if our kicker that the Chargers drafted before us will miss 3 field goals in the playoff game?

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 12:27 PM
I think what he was trying to say was that having a chance to atleast

COMPETE for the superbowl, sure as hell beats being near the cellar of

your division. Sure, Marty's teams have had their share of choking but

you also have to admit that Marty's teams have had ALOT of bad luck

along the way in the postseason including have to deal with John Elway

a few times. When you also look at where each those teams was

before Marty arrived, you have to atleast appreciate where he took

them to. Each of those organizations were in shambles when he got

there.

I'd hate to see what you all would say if Marty did end up winning a

superbowl with the Chargers. That would be your worst nightmare as it

would only serve to validate the entire Chiefs' organizations' futility with

ANY coach at the helm over the last few decades. I guess that's why

most of you are rooting against him. I don't say I blame you....

Good coaches don't continuously put themselves in situations where luck alone decides the outcome of the game. Coaches that play aggressive and play to win don't suffer from "luck", at least not OVER AND OVER like Marty.

If Marty did win it all with the Chargers, it would make me hate him even more, and that's exactly what I posted earlier in this thread.

For him to win it all, he would have to CHANGE. If he has indeed changed enough to win the Super Bowl in San Diego, why the **** didn't he do it after TEN YEARS in KC?

Lzen
12-29-2004, 12:34 PM
Have to agree with Parker here. Very good points. I was gonna say you make your own luck. ;) Only thing I don't necessarily agree with is that I want to give Vermeil another season to get some defensive players in here and try to get to the SB. But I am getting tired of some of his ways.

Calcountry
12-29-2004, 12:35 PM
i put L T and it typed that out...L T...who programmed that to happen? thats too funny
I think that is because, there can be only one LT.

You might get away with LDT.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 12:36 PM
At this point, Vermeil = Marty.

We gotta get rid of Carl or we have no chance.

Baby Lee
12-29-2004, 12:44 PM
Of course, that's what Marty fans are all about. It doesn't matter if you ever win a Super Bowl. We can be proud of holding records for regular season wins while simultaneously setting the standard for playoff futility.
At least I'm a fan of a Chiefs team that actually took the field, instead bitching for decades because they haven't conformed to some imaginary prototypical Chiefs team that never existed outside your mind, at least not since the invention of the silicon wafer.

"My idea of a successful Chiefs team is a SB champion." How deep. Thanks for the insight.

If that is your sole standard for rising above mediocrity, I'm not gonna question your fandom. But I will question your intelligence. The Chiefs haven't been to the SB in my lifetime, and they are as far from it as ever right now. There is nothing in the Chiefs' history to merit the expectations you have.
Would you buy 80 Yugos, hoping one of them handles like a Testarossa?

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 01:06 PM
At least I'm a fan of a Chiefs team that actually took the field, instead bitching for decades because they haven't conformed to some imaginary prototypical Chiefs team that never existed outside your mind, at least not since the invention of the silicon wafer.

"My idea of a successful Chiefs team is a SB champion." How deep. Thanks for the insight.

If that is your sole standard for rising above mediocrity, I'm not gonna question your fandom. But I will question your intelligence. The Chiefs haven't been to the SB in my lifetime, and they are as far from it as ever right now. There is nothing in the Chiefs' history to merit the expectations you have.
Would you buy 80 Yugos, hoping one of them handles like a Testarossa?

It's unrealistic or somehow unintelligent for me to want to win a Super Bowl? It's unfathomable for a "realistic" fan to want playoff wins, or a Super Bowl appearance? After all, this is the Chiefs. I mean, even the Bengals and Bucs have been in the last 30 years.

The lot is full of Chevy Malibu's, there's 32 of them in fact. I would expect the one I buy to drive like the REST of the Chevy Malibu's, not like a Yugo.

chileanbolt
12-29-2004, 01:21 PM
chiefscountry, are you talking about Nate Keaning? the kicker out of Iowa?

Baby Lee
12-29-2004, 01:30 PM
It's unrealistic or somehow unintelligent for me to want to win a Super Bowl? It's unfathomable for a "realistic" fan to want playoff wins, or a Super Bowl appearance? After all, this is the Chiefs. I mean, even the Bengals and Bucs have been in the last 30 years.

The lot is full of Chevy Malibu's, there's 32 of them in fact. I would expect the one I buy to drive like the REST of the Chevy Malibu's, not like a Yugo.
Don't be coy. You aren't just wanting playoff wins. You are saying "As a Chief's fan, I spit on anything other than a SB win. And there is no difference between a quality team that is among the best in the league year after year, and fielding the worst D in the history of the game, because it all falls into 'not SB win' territory."

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 01:39 PM
Don't be coy. You aren't just wanting playoff wins. You are saying "As a Chief's fan, I spit on anything other than a SB win. And there is no difference between a quality team that is among the best in the league year after year, and fielding the worst D in the history of the game, because it all falls into 'not SB win' territory."

First of all, if you had bothered to read, I've said NUMEROUS times that what I want is a Super Bowl APPEARANCE. A win would be nice, but I just want to get there. You're grossly over-exaggerating and you know it.

And no, in the end, there is no difference between fielding a "quality" team under Marty and fielding the worst defense in the league. The GOAL is the Super Bowl, for every team. Anything less is nothing more than a moral victory.

I'm sorry that regular season wins is enough for you. It's not for me. It's not for most fans. And it's especially not for most teams, save Carl Peterson and the Chiefs.

Calcountry
12-29-2004, 01:45 PM
Martyball winning, now THAT would be a natural Disaster.

Rausch
12-29-2004, 01:51 PM
After seeing Dilfer win a SB I think anything's possible...

Logical
12-29-2004, 01:55 PM
... There is nothing in the Chiefs' history to merit the expectations you have.
Would you buy 80 Yugos, hoping one of them handles like a Testarossa?

Well at least I see that you understand the Carl Peterson approach to acquiring talented players in the draft.

Baby Lee
12-29-2004, 01:55 PM
I'm sorry that regular season wins is enough for you. It's not for me. It's not for most fans. And it's especially not for most teams, save Carl Peterson and the Chiefs.
I've never said regular season wins are enough. Where we differ is on the issue of whether Marty's lack of luck in the playoffs is an immutable characteristic or a hump to be gotten over. If regular season wins were enough, I'd have been satisfied with last year's results. But that team actually DID enter the playoffs immutably on track for elimination.
Bottom line, even if Marty fielded teams that didn't fare well in the playoffs, at least they were teams you could take pride in. They won the TO wars, they had discipline [until '98], the upset then thought to be powerhouses, people feared them and feared Arrowhead. Now, the Chiefs are good for a chuckle. They're the world's only outdoor Arena Football team. Their defense is a joke and their offense is capable of scoring, but in the end impotent because either the D will give up more than anyone can keep up with or the O will disappear just long enough to lose the game.
I'm not saying the Schottenheimer era is the best we could ever aspire to, but at least I could proclaim my fandom without hanging my head in shame.

Logical
12-29-2004, 02:07 PM
...
I'm not saying the Schottenheimer era is the best we could ever aspire to, but at least I could proclaim my fandom without hanging my head in shame.

You probably are one of the few that would say that. I for one was only happier when Gun was fired than when Marty left. I will never ever miss his boring tired ass offensive style. I join Parker in being pissed if he actually changed that this year.

Baby Lee
12-29-2004, 02:10 PM
You probably are one of the few that would say that. I for one was only happier when Gun was fired than when Marty left. I will never ever miss his boring tired ass offensive style. I join Parker in being pissed if he actually changed that this year.
Your pansy-assed vision of football is a matter of record. ;)

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 02:11 PM
I've never said regular season wins are enough. Where we differ is on the issue of whether Marty's lack of luck in the playoffs is an immutable characteristic or a hump to be gotten over. If regular season wins were enough, I'd have been satisfied with last year's results. But that team actually DID enter the playoffs immutably on track for elimination.

You actually believed that those Marty teams (save for the one with Joe Montana) were capable of advancing in the playoffs? Who is it here that has unrealistic expectations?

As for Marty's lack of luck in the playoffs, I would concede that point if it had only happened in KC. However, it's been a HALLMARK of his entire career, everywhere he's been.

Bottom line, even if Marty fielded teams that didn't fare well in the playoffs, at least they were teams you could take pride in. They won the TO wars, they had discipline [until '98], the upset then thought to be powerhouses, people feared them and feared Arrowhead. Now, the Chiefs are good for a chuckle. They're the world's only outdoor Arena Football team. Their defense is a joke and their offense is capable of scoring, but in the end impotent because either the D will give up more than anyone can keep up with or the O will disappear just long enough to lose the game.

The characteristics you ascribe to those Marty teams can also be ascribed to Vermeil's. Discipline -- Vermeil's teams - until this year - were the league's best in avoiding penalities. These 4 years under Vermeil have been a continuation of everything we saw under Marty, only turned inside-out.

Face it, you can't stand the fact that our defense sucks. In the end, it doesn't matter if we win, does it, as long as our defense is good?

I could care less how we get there -- defense, offense, or special teams. I just want to get there, and that's why I supported Vermeil. He was a definitive CHANGE from an approach that was already a proven failure.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 02:12 PM
Your pansy-assed vision of football is a matter of record. ;)

Let it be noted that Baby Lee would rather LOSE than be considered a "pansy".

;)

Rausch
12-29-2004, 02:14 PM
I could care less how we get there -- defense, offense, or special teams. I just want to get there, and that's why I supported Vermeil. He was a definitive CHANGE from an approach that was already a proven failure.

Agreed. Don't get me wrong, I loved the Marty years here. But it was the same thing darn near every year in the playoffs.

Now we have a coach who's taken two suck-butt teams to the SB, and I'm supposed to throw up my arms and say "can't happen.".... :spock:

Baby Lee
12-29-2004, 02:29 PM
Let it be noted that Baby Lee would rather LOSE than be considered a "pansy".

;)
First off, I'd rather never lose.

But yes, I'd rather lose a close defensive stuggle in January after a season of smacking teams DOWN, than play pansy-assed arena football, so the talking heads on ESPN can laugh at the pansy-assed Chiefs losing another shootout, . . when they talk about them at all.

As for Marty's lack of luck in the playoffs, I would concede that point if it had only happened in KC. However, it's been a HALLMARK of his entire career, everywhere he's been.
And I'd concede that point if Elway was still around taking the Broncos to SB after SB with nothing more than his arm.

You say "entire" and "everywhere" like it was half the teams in the league. He lost a 3 pt game with his 8-8 Browns against the 12-4 and heavily favored Dolphins in 85. He then lost twice in the AFC CHAMPIONSHIP to Elway, then he lost by one point to the Oilers in an evenly matched game.

Cleveland has paid dearly in the ensuing years for dumping a coach who took them to the Playoffs 4 straight years, and to the AFC Championship 2 of those 4. Hate to see the Chiefs travelling the same road, while the Chargers take on the profile of the Chiefs of the '90s, in an Elway-less world.

Calcountry
12-29-2004, 02:33 PM
You actually believed that those Marty teams (save for the one with Joe Montana) were capable of advancing in the playoffs? Who is it here that has unrealistic expectations?

As for Marty's lack of luck in the playoffs, I would concede that point if it had only happened in KC. However, it's been a HALLMARK of his entire career, everywhere he's been.



The characteristics you ascribe to those Marty teams can also be ascribed to Vermeil's. Discipline -- Vermeil's teams - until this year - were the league's best in avoiding penalities. These 4 years under Vermeil have been a continuation of everything we saw under Marty, only turned inside-out.

Face it, you can't stand the fact that our defense sucks. In the end, it doesn't matter if we win, does it, as long as our defense is good?

I could care less how we get there -- defense, offense, or special teams. I just want to get there, and that's why I supported Vermeil. He was a definitive CHANGE from an approach that was already a proven failure.
Quality post, and a good read.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 02:33 PM
Agreed. Don't get me wrong, I loved the Marty years here. But it was the same thing darn near every year in the playoffs.

Now we have a coach who's taken two suck-butt teams to the SB, and I'm supposed to throw up my arms and say "can't happen.".... :spock:

Precisely...

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 02:37 PM
First off, I'd rather never lose.

Of course, I realize this. I was just making a little fun.

But yes, I'd rather lose a close defensive stuggle in January after a season of smacking teams DOWN, than play pansy-assed arena football, so the talking heads on ESPN can laugh at the pansy-assed Chiefs losing another shootout, . . when they talk about them at all.

This, of course, is 100% your view. You care about "style" and I could care less. Both the 85 Bears and the 99 Rams won Super Bowls. I don't care how they got there.

And I'd concede that point if Elway was still around taking the Broncos to SB after SB with nothing more than his arm.

You say "entire" and "everywhere" like it was half the teams in the league. He lost a 3 pt game with his 8-8 Browns against the 12-4 and heavily favored Dolphins in 85. He then lost twice in the AFC CHAMPIONSHIP to Elway, then he lost by one point to the Oilers in an evenly matched game.

Cleveland has paid dearly in the ensuing years for dumping a coach who took them to the Playoffs 4 straight years, and to the AFC Championship 2 of those 4. Hate to see the Chiefs travelling the same road, while the Chargers take on the profile of the Chiefs of the '90s, in an Elway-less world.

The argument about Elway is an argument of convenience. You act as if all of those close losses were caused by something other than Marty's stubborn conservatism. Marty lost those close games because that's the bed he made. If he'd have played to WIN instead of playing for the FG, he'd have won AT LEAST one Super Bowl by now.

And I could care less if the Chargers become the Chiefs of the 90's. If they don't win a Super Bowl, it's all meaningless.

Piper
12-29-2004, 02:43 PM
How many years was Paul (can't) Hackett with Marty?
As a Jets fan, I am stuck with this azzhat and the pain is unbearable...

Baby Lee
12-29-2004, 02:49 PM
This, of course, is 100% your view. You care about "style" and I could care less. Both the 85 Bears and the 99 Rams won Super Bowls. I don't care how they got there.
I think we're getting somewhere. Because you have to care how they got there, if you intend to get there as well. The '85 Bears won their regular season [which doesn't matter, remember] with D, and their playoff games 21-0, 24-0 and 46-10. The '99 Rams won their regular season with O, and their playoff games 49-37, 11-6 and 23-16.
With the exception of the Minn game, the sole recurring factor is low opposing scoring. MoF, the Defensive minded Bears outscored the mighty GSOT of 99. Teams win with D. They win by doing what Schottenheimer did, only a little better. Nobody wins the SB by going DV's present route. And certainly no team has gone to the SB on the back of their STs.
You can say "I don't care how we get there." But there is one way to get there, and it's closer to Schotty's way, than any other way we might try.
And where you say "style," I say "fundamental approach." Potaytoe, potahtoe.
How did the Ravens win the SB? The Schotty way.
How did the Bucs win the SB? The Schotty way.
How did the Pats win 2 in 3? The Schotty way with a little more O.
How did the Panthers get to the SB? The Schotty way.

Rausch
12-29-2004, 02:53 PM
I think we're getting somewhere. Because you have to care how they got there, if you intend to get there as well. The '85 Bears won their regular season [which doesn't matter, remember] with D, and their playoff games 21-0, 24-0 and 46-10. The '99 Rams won their regular season with O, and their playoff games 49-37, 11-6 and 23-16.
With the exception of the Minn game, the sole recurring factor is low opposing scoring. MoF, the Defensive minded Bears outscored the mighty GSOT of 99. Teams win with D. They win by doing what Schottenheimer did, only a little better. Nobody wins the SB by going DV's present route. And certainly no team has gone to the SB on the back of their STs.
You can say "I don't care how we get there." But there is one way to get there, and it's closer to Schotty's way, than any other way we might try.

Keep in mind that it was Brady's ability to move the ball down the field and score when necessary that got them their two rings.

Much like Montana against the Bengals: no 4th down goal line stop by Dan Bunz (my friend's uncle :) ) and Montana never goes on that long and historic drive.

The niners defense wasn't beat all, but it made stops when it HAD to. The offense scored pts when it HAD to.

To me, it doesn't matter the style, what matters is having PLAYMAKERS...

Baby Lee
12-29-2004, 02:59 PM
To me, it doesn't matter the style, what matters is having PLAYMAKERS...
For the record, I have never [with the exception of Montana] supported the tendency to chose our QB from the 9ers castaway collection. That, IMO was the downfall of the Schottenheimer in KC era.
I was a Grbacker, but only in the sense that he was, at all times, the best that we HAD. Not that he was the best available. Would've loved to have seen what effect Jeff George's arm would've had on the Chief's fortunes.

Deberg_1990
12-29-2004, 03:00 PM
How many years was Paul (can't) Hackett with Marty?
As a Jets fan, I am stuck with this azzhat and the pain is unbearable...


hahaha.......we knew when you guys hired that assclown that he would came back to haunt you guys donw the road. He was our OC here from 1993 to 1997 I believe? about 3 years too many.

Skip Towne
12-29-2004, 03:01 PM
I've never said regular season wins are enough. Where we differ is on the issue of whether Marty's lack of luck in the playoffs is an immutable characteristic or a hump to be gotten over. If regular season wins were enough, I'd have been satisfied with last year's results. But that team actually DID enter the playoffs immutably on track for elimination.
Bottom line, even if Marty fielded teams that didn't fare well in the playoffs, at least they were teams you could take pride in. They won the TO wars, they had discipline [until '98], the upset then thought to be powerhouses, people feared them and feared Arrowhead. Now, the Chiefs are good for a chuckle. They're the world's only outdoor Arena Football team. Their defense is a joke and their offense is capable of scoring, but in the end impotent because either the D will give up more than anyone can keep up with or the O will disappear just long enough to lose the game.
I'm not saying the Schottenheimer era is the best we could ever aspire to, but at least I could proclaim my fandom without hanging my head in shame.
Exactly right.

TEX
12-29-2004, 03:03 PM
Marty did have some poor OCs during his days with the Chiefs.
Joe Pendry, Paul Hackett, and of course Jimmy Raye.

But he also had some pretty good DCs.
Bill Cowher and Gun.
Dave Adolf was the one bad one he hired.

I can't remember ST coaches.

The point here though, is that The Three Stooges were unique to Gun's reign as HC.
Raye, Marty's little brother, and Mike Stock.

Not true - who hired them in the first place? Gun inherited that group of losers and when they left, Marty hired them AGAIN in DC... ROFL

Calcountry
12-29-2004, 03:08 PM
I think we're getting somewhere. Because you have to care how they got there, if you intend to get there as well. The '85 Bears won their regular season [which doesn't matter, remember] with D, and their playoff games 21-0, 24-0 and 46-10. The '99 Rams won their regular season with O, and their playoff games 49-37, 11-6 and 23-16.
With the exception of the Minn game, the sole recurring factor is low opposing scoring. MoF, the Defensive minded Bears outscored the mighty GSOT of 99. Teams win with D. They win by doing what Schottenheimer did, only a little better. Nobody wins the SB by going DV's present route. And certainly no team has gone to the SB on the back of their STs.
You can say "I don't care how we get there." But there is one way to get there, and it's closer to Schotty's way, than any other way we might try.
And where you say "style," I say "fundamental approach." Potaytoe, potahtoe.
How did the Ravens win the SB? The Schotty way.
How did the Bucs win the SB? The Schotty way.
How did the Pats win 2 in 3? The Schotty way with a little more O.
How did the Panthers get to the SB? The Schotty way.
Damn what a shoddy way to go to the Super Bowl.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 03:13 PM
I think we're getting somewhere. Because you have to care how they got there, if you intend to get there as well. The '85 Bears won their regular season [which doesn't matter, remember] with D, and their playoff games 21-0, 24-0 and 46-10. The '99 Rams won their regular season with O, and their playoff games 49-37, 11-6 and 23-16.
With the exception of the Minn game, the sole recurring factor is low opposing scoring. MoF, the Defensive minded Bears outscored the mighty GSOT of 99. Teams win with D. They win by doing what Schottenheimer did, only a little better. Nobody wins the SB by going DV's present route. And certainly no team has gone to the SB on the back of their STs.
You can say "I don't care how we get there." But there is one way to get there, and it's closer to Schotty's way, than any other way we might try.
And where you say "style," I say "fundamental approach." Potaytoe, potahtoe.
How did the Ravens win the SB? The Schotty way.
How did the Bucs win the SB? The Schotty way.
How did the Pats win 2 in 3? The Schotty way with a little more O.
How did the Panthers get to the SB? The Schotty way.

The Ravens and Panthers knew how to run the ball. The Pats had Tom Brady.

Only the Bucs won the Super Bowl the "Marty" way...

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 03:14 PM
Would've loved to have seen what effect Jeff George's arm would've had on the Chief's fortunes.

Would NOT have loved to have seen what effect Jeff George's HEAD would've had on the Chiefs' fortunes. :D

Rausch
12-29-2004, 03:15 PM
For the record, I have never [with the exception of Montana] supported the tendency to chose our QB from the 9ers castaway collection. That, IMO was the downfall of the Schottenheimer in KC era.
I was a Grbacker, but only in the sense that he was, at all times, the best that we HAD. Not that he was the best available. Would've loved to have seen what effect Jeff George's arm would've had on the Chief's fortunes.

And we took that same approach with HB.

So it got us nowhere.

The important thing to rememer is that the Chargers had success this year because the leopard DID change his stripes. He aired it out.

But then, against the Donks and Colts, his azz puckered up and we saw the ever-dreaded "play not to lose" game management... :shake:

Baby Lee
12-29-2004, 03:19 PM
Would NOT have loved to have seen what effect Jeff George's HEAD would've had on the Chiefs' fortunes. :D
I'm under to illusion that George is perfect, but it would've been nice to see what kind of synergy could be wrought between George bringing a better arm than Schotty ever had, and Schotty providing a better defense and way better O-line than George ever had.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 03:20 PM
I'm under to illusion that George is perfect, but it would've been nice to see what kind of synergy could be wrought between George bringing a better arm than Schotty ever had, and Schotty providing a better defense and way better O-line than George ever had.

I don't know. I tend to think that George's uncanny ability to make everyone around him hate him would have been hard to overcome...

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 03:21 PM
After all, Grbac - like George - was all arm and no heart/head...

I wish we could have seen Marty with PRIEST HOLMES. We could have won it all with any of those QB's we had, IMO...

Baby Lee
12-29-2004, 03:22 PM
The Ravens and Panthers knew how to run the ball. The Pats had Tom Brady.

Only the Bucs won the Super Bowl the "Marty" way...
C'mon. The Ravens OUT-MARTY-ed, Marty. Almost every game was an exercise in how much a defense could overcome a dreadful O. Marty fielded offenses that Billick would've KILLED for. But their D was just enough better to close the deal.

Baby Lee
12-29-2004, 03:25 PM
After all, Grbac - like George - was all arm and no heart/head...

I wish we could have seen Marty with PRIEST HOLMES. We could have won it all with any of those QB's we had, IMO...
Wait, I thought Marty winning it all was a metaphysical impossibility.
No way metaphysically impossible is ONE PLAYER away from probable.

;)

Calcountry
12-29-2004, 03:47 PM
Let me sum this up for you: Marty loses games by a yard, DV wins them by a yard.

Lzen
12-29-2004, 04:28 PM
I think the thread title should be changed.

MARTYBALL means WINNING.......uh.....errrr....except in the playoffs....yeah, that's it.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 06:21 PM
C'mon. The Ravens OUT-MARTY-ed, Marty. Almost every game was an exercise in how much a defense could overcome a dreadful O. Marty fielded offenses that Billick would've KILLED for. But their D was just enough better to close the deal.

The Ravens had Shannon Sharpe and Jamal Lewis, two things Marty never had. The 2000 Ravens were a FAR better offense than what Marty put on the field in 1995 and 1997. The Ravens were inconsistent, but could break a 65-yard TD at any time. The only time Marty's teams scored 65-yard TD's is if they were returning an INT.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 06:24 PM
Wait, I thought Marty winning it all was a metaphysical impossibility.
No way metaphysically impossible is ONE PLAYER away from probable.

;)

My mistake, you're right. Although having Priest Holmes would have been a dramatic improvement over Greg Hill and Donnell Bennett, we all know that Priest would have been sent to the bench for 2 quarters after ripping off his first 30-yard run.

:thumb:

Baby Lee
12-29-2004, 06:29 PM
The Ravens had Shannon Sharpe and Jamal Lewis, two things Marty never had. The 2000 Ravens were a FAR better offense than what Marty put on the field in 1995 and 1997. The Ravens were inconsistent, but could break a 65-yard TD at any time. The only time Marty's teams scored 65-yard TD's is if they were returning an INT.
Or bootlegging in the Zona desert. :thumb:

But seriously though, you are dangerously close to on crack. You need to look closer at the numbers. The Ravens have NEVER been close to the Chiefs in the 90s, either in terms of overall offense or in long plays from scrimmage. I'm not gonna look them up, but I know they're there.

Logical
12-29-2004, 06:49 PM
For the record, I have never [with the exception of Montana] supported the tendency to chose our QB from the 9ers castaway collection. That, IMO was the downfall of the Schottenheimer in KC era.
I was a Grbacker, but only in the sense that he was, at all times, the best that we HAD. Not that he was the best available. Would've loved to have seen what effect Jeff George's arm would've had on the Chief's fortunes.

I knew it all along Baby Lee is another pseudonym for Whitlock.;)

Baby Lee
12-29-2004, 06:54 PM
I knew it all along Baby Lee is another pseudonym for Whitlock.;)
Need to make this clear. I'm not a fan of George, and laughed like hell every time he failed. But that's because he was constantly brought in as a savior for a seriously flawed team. I saw a George/Schottenheimer marriage as potentially George's one chance to fit into a place where he didn't have to do everything and he could grow into a real live boy.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 06:55 PM
Or bootlegging in the Zona desert. :thumb:

But seriously though, you are dangerously close to on crack. You need to look closer at the numbers. The Ravens have NEVER been close to the Chiefs in the 90s, either in terms of overall offense or in long plays from scrimmage. I'm not gonna look them up, but I know they're there.

I'm not talking about the regular season, I don't care about compilation stats.

I'm talking about coming through in the playoffs when it mattered most.

In the 2000 Playoffs, Shannon Sharpe scored THREE times from more than 50 yards, including breaking a 0-0 tie with the Raiders by going 96 yards. Jamal Lewis rushed more than 25 times 3 times in 4 games.

Yes, the Ravens played SMASHMOUTH, but that's not Martyball. Martyball has no playmakers, no guys that can make a routine 3-yard gain into a 60-yard TD. The Ravens, in Jamal Lewis and Shannon Sharpe, had 2 more playmakers than the Chiefs had when Marty was here.

And it wasn't even that we didn't have playmakers so much as Marty refused to use them or didn't see anything in them. (see Joe Horn)

And that's the one thing that leads me to believe he's changed somewhat -- he's obviously not afraid to give the ball to his go-to guys in Sandy Eggo and let THEM do the work...

alanm
12-29-2004, 07:53 PM
My mistake, you're right. Although having Priest Holmes would have been a dramatic improvement over Greg Hill and Donnell Bennett, we all know that Priest would have been sent to the bench for 2 quarters after ripping off his first 30-yard run.

:thumb:That ain't no shit.:banghead::cuss:

chiefsfan1963
12-29-2004, 08:21 PM
I just wanted to let you guys know that a lot of us Chargers fans are

still not too excited about shotty. The thing about the whole Martyball

being done with kind of happened by accident. When Lawrence Taylor got hurt he

became less effective, so Cam (O coordinator) decided to throw the ball

more. No one liked the whole Martyball crap he started even with the

goddy numbers Lawrence Taylor was putting up because like you guys said it was

boring and predictable and we lost a lot. Brees is the main reason why

Marty changed his colors. He basically changed it because it was

working and he needed a good season to save his job. I don't know if its

old age or just that he didn't want to change what was working but all

of a sudden he wants to do whats neccisary to keep his job


I could not resist this thread. Much of what this Bolt fan says is spot on! This team in no way resembles a prototypical Marty Team. I don't think he has ever coached a better Offensive unit in his long career.
His D is solid enough, but his O is very productive and can be the difference during the playoffs no matter how conservative Marty's philosophy. I don't think he can screw it up. There is too many playmakers on that side of the ball. I'm not saying that they are going to the SB this year, but they have a better chance than any of his Chiefs teams did in the 90's. Much more balanced, and more playmakers on O is the difference.

I'm still glad we have Vermeil. Next season will be his 5th season with the Chiefs. If he can get to the SB next year and win, then there will be no more argument on who was our Best Coach Ever.

No matter what happens next year Vermeil will leave us with a much better team than he was given. Certainly Marty didn't do this when he left! To me this is a mark of a great coach. Vermeil has done this for each team he has coached, Philly and St. Louie, and he will do it for KC.

All the Vermeil naysayers can put this in their pipe,
and smoke it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :cuss:

milkman
12-29-2004, 11:44 PM
Marty got more out of less talent than most, and Carl saddled him with some really unspectacular players on offense.

But to me, MartyBall is, and always has been, his proppensity to go ultraconservative as early as the mid 3rd qtr with a lead.
That has been his single most inferiorating trait.
That was the reason that he has lost so many games when he had leads going into the 4th qtr.

And that is the reason that he has been so futile in the playoffs.

And the game against the Colts shows us that, while this Charger team hasn't played what most consider the MartyBall style, they still will lose in classic MartyBall style.

MartyBall isn't about scheme.
It's about attitude.

Where Billick went for the jugular, Marty still goes for the covers.

milkman
12-29-2004, 11:50 PM
Not true - who hired them in the first place? Gun inherited that group of losers and when they left, Marty hired them AGAIN in DC... ROFL

Gun was Marty's DC.

So it is true that 2 of the 3 Stooges were inherited, Gun promoted the 3rd one, and Marty never had a stafff as incompetent.

chiefsfan1963
12-30-2004, 11:01 AM
Marty got more out of less talent than most, and Carl saddled him with some really unspectacular players on offense.

But to me, MartyBall is, and always has been, his proppensity to go ultraconservative as early as the mid 3rd qtr with a lead.
That has been his single most inferiorating trait.
That was the reason that he has lost so many games when he had leads going into the 4th qtr.

And that is the reason that he has been so futile in the playoffs.

And the game against the Colts shows us that, while this Charger team hasn't played what most consider the MartyBall style, they still will lose in classic MartyBall style.

MartyBall isn't about scheme.
It's about attitude.

Where Billick went for the jugular, Marty still goes for the covers.


I'm not sure about this. Because of the playmakers on O, Marty is a lot less conservative than he ever was in KC or Cleveland. You might be right that when it comes to clutch time he might freeze and go ultra-conservative during the playoffs, but then again he may have finally broken this bad habit. We'll have to wait and see.

penchief
12-30-2004, 11:13 AM
Schottenheimer, who values his ability as a problem solver above all else, gutted the roster. The Chargers, taking the approach Schottenheimer called “addition by subtraction,” cut their ties with old favorites who had worn out their welcome. They rebuilt the team, bringing in 21 new players to the 53-man active roster, including an all-new offensive line as Schottenheimer found players who bought into his mantra of hard work, discipline and his signature “one play at a time.”

Uhm, do you ever think that Vermeil will "gut the roster" and cut his "ties with old favorites" to rebuild a team???

I'm fairly certain that if Marty were still coaching the Chiefs the defense would be held to a higher standard. Boy, would he love our offensive line and our running backs.

Chiefnj
12-30-2004, 11:14 AM
I think Marty's early success in KC and his success now in San Diego is due in large part to his picking good coordinators and surrounding himself with good coaches.

Lzen
12-30-2004, 11:26 AM
Gun was Marty's DC.

So it is true that 2 of the 3 Stooges were inherited, Gun promoted the 3rd one, and Marty never had a stafff as incompetent.

Yes, Gun was his DC and Kurt Schottenheimer(his brother) was the secondary coach, I believe.