PDA

View Full Version : This week's spin from Chiefs management and KCChiefs.com


shaneo69
12-28-2004, 01:45 PM
This thread is dedicated to Wile_E_Coyote because I know he likes it when I bitch.... :p

A few weeks ago, when the Chiefs were 3-8, the excuse from anyone and everyone who worked in the Chiefs organization was that it was just one of those wacky years where everything goes wrong, and the only explanation was "bad karma."

Now that we're on the verge of 8-8 and everyone's forgot that we were basically eliminated from the playoffs after Week 11, the Chiefs spin machine is at it once again. The new buzzword at One Arrowhead Drive is.......entertainment.

It doesn't matter that the Chiefs have missed the playoffs despite having another record-setting offensive performance this year. The new subliminal message is that Chiefs football is simply great entertainment, and if you expect anything more from this team (like a playoff win), then you are taking this "game" too seriously and should probably find a new hobby.

Let's take a look at snippets from KCChiefs.com's articles from today...

Rand: "The Chiefs are producing the kinds of offensive numbers that should be good for a playoff spot. Instead, they’re providing just good entertainment."

Gretz (1st question on the 12/27 DV Show): "You sure do have a team that can put on an entertaining performance."

Rufus: "Most of us live a privileged and a lucky life, yet, despite our circumstances, we find ourselves spending far too much of every day listening to dreary forecasts on sports talk radio, ...(blah, blah, blah). Perhaps we should devote ourselves to taking inventory of those things that invariably delight us, like Christmas, and, yes, Chiefs football."

Fug you, Rufus. Nothing about this season has delighted me. With our offense, we probably should've won one or two Super Bowls in the past three years. Instead, we have one playoff game and no playoff wins to show for it. Yet everyone in Chiefs-land is supposed to have a big smile on their face because we finished with a meaningless five-game winning streak.

Deberg_1990
12-28-2004, 01:53 PM
Rand: "The Chiefs are producing the kinds of offensive numbers that should be good for a playoff spot. Instead, they’re providing just good entertainment."

Gretz (1st question on the 12/27 DV Show): "You sure do have a team that can put on an entertaining performance."

Rufus: "Most of us live a privileged and a lucky life, yet, despite our circumstances, we find ourselves spending far too much of every day listening to dreary forecasts on sports talk radio, ...(blah, blah, blah). Perhaps we should devote ourselves to taking inventory of those things that invariably delight us, like Christmas, and, yes, Chiefs football."



Nice....with thinking like this, I can understand why we havent won a Super Bowl in 30+ years and we are headed into year 16 of Carls 5 years plan. God, just once id love to hear from the Chiefs front office how pissed off they are about this year!! The fans would respect them more if they showed us how mad they are about how things have turned out this year or last.

unlurking
12-28-2004, 01:58 PM
I'd have turned to my beloved Red Wings for 'entertainment' by now if that's all I wanted.

KCChiefsFan88
12-28-2004, 02:05 PM
You hear this same garbage from Vermeil at his press conferences practically every week.

When boasts about how the Chiefs are setting records for gaining over 400 yards of total offense multiple times this year, about Trent Green's QB ratings and other statistics.

Does Vermeil realize he isn't coaching a fantasy football team

Deberg_1990
12-28-2004, 02:09 PM
Does Vermeil realize he isn't coaching a fantasy football team

Apparantly NOT. Or else he would have rebuilt the defense from scratch 2 years ago. Ultimately, nobody cares how many TD's Priest scores or Trent throws for. All we care about are the wins!

ENDelt260
12-28-2004, 02:23 PM
It must be wholly unpleasant to have so much negativity in one's life.

morphius
12-28-2004, 02:25 PM
I'd have turned to my beloved Red Wings for 'entertainment' by now if that's all I wanted.
Damn this is going to be a LONG offseason. This no hockey thing and no good Chiefs stuff till April is going to bite.

unlurking
12-28-2004, 02:29 PM
Damn this is going to be a LONG offseason. This no hockey thing and no good Chiefs stuff till April is going to bite.
Yep.

I'm thinking a 9 month drinking binge is in order!

Cochise
12-28-2004, 02:29 PM
It must be wholly unpleasant to have so much negativity in one's life.

No chit.

I'm glad I don't go through life thinking that everyone is lying to me all the time...

StcChief
12-28-2004, 02:36 PM
They got to spin something good of this.

Just wait for the report card at the end of the year and
see what off season moves are made.

I don't see 'standing pat' again.

ENDelt260
12-28-2004, 02:36 PM
I'm thinking a 9 month drinking binge is in order!

Like I needed an excuse.

KingPriest2
12-28-2004, 02:38 PM
No chit.

I'm glad I don't go through life thinking that everyone is lying to me all the time...


I am sorry to inform you...

shaneo69
12-28-2004, 04:45 PM
It must be wholly unpleasant to have so much negativity in one's life.


Shiny, happy people holding hands....shiny, happy people holding hands...

bricks
12-28-2004, 04:54 PM
This thread is dedicated to Wile_E_Coyote because I know he likes it when I bitch.... :p

A few weeks ago, when the Chiefs were 3-8, the excuse from anyone and everyone who worked in the Chiefs organization was that it was just one of those wacky years where everything goes wrong, and the only explanation was "bad karma."

Now that we're on the verge of 8-8 and everyone's forgot that we were basically eliminated from the playoffs after Week 11, the Chiefs spin machine is at it once again. The new buzzword at One Arrowhead Drive is.......entertainment.

It doesn't matter that the Chiefs have missed the playoffs despite having another record-setting offensive performance this year. The new subliminal message is that Chiefs football is simply great entertainment, and if you expect anything more from this team (like a playoff win), then you are taking this "game" too seriously and should probably find a new hobby.

Let's take a look at snippets from KCChiefs.com's articles from today...

Rand: "The Chiefs are producing the kinds of offensive numbers that should be good for a playoff spot. Instead, they’re providing just good entertainment."

Gretz (1st question on the 12/27 DV Show): "You sure do have a team that can put on an entertaining performance."

Rufus: "Most of us live a privileged and a lucky life, yet, despite our circumstances, we find ourselves spending far too much of every day listening to dreary forecasts on sports talk radio, ...(blah, blah, blah). Perhaps we should devote ourselves to taking inventory of those things that invariably delight us, like Christmas, and, yes, Chiefs football."

Fug you, Rufus. Nothing about this season has delighted me. With our offense, we probably should've won one or two Super Bowls in the past three years. Instead, we have one playoff game and no playoff wins to show for it. Yet everyone in Chiefs-land is supposed to have a big smile on their face because we finished with a meaningless five-game winning streak.

Well, they seem to care more about numbers. These guys should find another hobby themselves. I'm thinking lottery retail, casinos, banks...F@ck football.

ChiefsFire
12-28-2004, 04:55 PM
This thread is dedicated to Wile_E_Coyote because I know he likes it when I bitch.... :p

A few weeks ago, when the Chiefs were 3-8, the excuse from anyone and everyone who worked in the Chiefs organization was that it was just one of those wacky years where everything goes wrong, and the only explanation was "bad karma."

Now that we're on the verge of 8-8 and everyone's forgot that we were basically eliminated from the playoffs after Week 11, the Chiefs spin machine is at it once again. The new buzzword at One Arrowhead Drive is.......entertainment.

It doesn't matter that the Chiefs have missed the playoffs despite having another record-setting offensive performance this year. The new subliminal message is that Chiefs football is simply great entertainment, and if you expect anything more from this team (like a playoff win), then you are taking this "game" too seriously and should probably find a new hobby.

Let's take a look at snippets from KCChiefs.com's articles from today...

Rand: "The Chiefs are producing the kinds of offensive numbers that should be good for a playoff spot. Instead, they’re providing just good entertainment."

Gretz (1st question on the 12/27 DV Show): "You sure do have a team that can put on an entertaining performance."

Rufus: "Most of us live a privileged and a lucky life, yet, despite our circumstances, we find ourselves spending far too much of every day listening to dreary forecasts on sports talk radio, ...(blah, blah, blah). Perhaps we should devote ourselves to taking inventory of those things that invariably delight us, like Christmas, and, yes, Chiefs football."

Fug you, Rufus. Nothing about this season has delighted me. With our offense, we probably should've won one or two Super Bowls in the past three years. Instead, we have one playoff game and no playoff wins to show for it. Yet everyone in Chiefs-land is supposed to have a big smile on their face because we finished with a meaningless five-game winning streak.


apparently Rufus is still pissed about 610 switching from country to sportstalk

Logical
12-28-2004, 05:47 PM
No chit.

I'm glad I don't go through life thinking that everyone is lying to me all the time...

Not everyone, just the Chiefs front office and PR organization. Truthfully all they want to do is sell tickets so they are doing what you would expect. It would be different if they wanted to win a Championship then I would expect actual regret to eminate from the front office.

The Bad Guy
12-28-2004, 05:53 PM
I'm convinced that winning these last 4 games is the worst thing that could of happened.


This organization's judgement is already clouded before when we were a bad losing team, now that we are mediocre one we are going to be blind in the offseason, again.

Deberg_1990
12-28-2004, 05:56 PM
I'm convinced that winning these last 4 games is the worst thing that could of happened.


This organization's judgement is already clouded before when we were a bad losing team, now that we are mediocre one we are going to be blind in the offseason, again.

Very much agreed. I know alot of people on here will think differently, but in the long run its probably the worst thing that could have happened.

Logical
12-28-2004, 05:59 PM
I'm convinced that winning these last 4 games is the worst thing that could of happened.


This organization's judgement is already clouded before when we were a bad losing team, now that we are mediocre one we are going to be blind in the offseason, again.Carl's history would say you are correct. DV's abysmal view that we have all the talent we need will certainly not be fixed either. Looking like the potential for a dismal offseason is in progress.

Calcountry
12-28-2004, 06:13 PM
Nice....with thinking like this, I can understand why we havent won a Super Bowl in 30+ years and we are headed into year 16 of Carls 5 years plan. God, just once id love to hear from the Chiefs front office how pissed off they are about this year!! The fans would respect them more if they showed us how mad they are about how things have turned out this year or last.
Chiefs fans are too forgiving and kind natured.

Calcountry
12-28-2004, 06:17 PM
Damn this is going to be a LONG offseason. This no hockey thing and no good Chiefs stuff till April is going to bite.
The famous quote from Animal House, "My advice to you is to start drinking heavily." :p

Ari Chi3fs
12-28-2004, 06:21 PM
i wish this team would get serious... I would like nothing more than the Chiefs to have teh kill all mentality that the Patriots have. If you fugg up tremendously... you are cut. I love that mentality. Instead, we got this patty cake - candy ass mentality... " Oh Julian Battle shows flashes... he is gonna be a great CB in this league someday... oh Bartee, he has tremendous upside..."

FUGG YOU ... YOU HAIRY FUGGWADS... flush the shit, and get real players, with skills... not potential to have skills... or these fuggin projects we see each year.

Fugg this.

morphius
12-28-2004, 06:48 PM
Chiefs fans are too forgiving and kind natured.
Well, the only other choice is to not be fans of the team any more, and that really isn't much of an option for a fanatic, now is it?

Jenny Gump
12-28-2004, 06:53 PM
Well, the only other choice is to not be fans of the team any more, and that really isn't much of an option for a fanatic, now is it?

What good does it do to get crazy and wigged out by a bad season? I agree with morphius.

I also had soup for lunch.

WilliamTheIrish
12-28-2004, 06:53 PM
i wish this team would get serious... I would like nothing more than the Chiefs to have teh kill all mentality that the Patriots have. If you fugg up tremendously... you are cut. I love that mentality. Instead, we got this patty cake - candy ass mentality... " Oh Julian Battle shows flashes... he is gonna be a great CB in this league someday... oh Bartee, he has tremendous upside..."

FUGG YOU ... YOU HAIRY FUGGWADS... flush the shit, and get real players, with skills... not potential to have skills... or these fuggin projects we see each year.

Fugg this.

Who did the Pats cut?

headsnap
12-28-2004, 07:34 PM
this thread is entertaining...:)

ck_IN
12-28-2004, 07:38 PM
This is just an extension DV's style over substance emphasis. Substance would mean not drafting backup TE's and back to back FB's and instead drafting a CB or MLB or DE or ANYTHING that would help this pitiful defense.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see us draft a WR this year with our 1st pick.

whoman69
12-28-2004, 07:41 PM
This is just an extension DV's style over substance emphasis. Substance would mean not drafting backup TE's and back to back FB's and instead drafting a CB or MLB or DE or ANYTHING that would help this pitiful defense.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see us draft a WR this year with our 1st pick.
I think it will be a DT.

shaneo69
12-28-2004, 07:58 PM
I'm convinced that winning these last 4 games is the worst thing that could of happened.

This organization's judgement is already clouded before when we were a bad losing team, now that we are mediocre one we are going to be blind in the offseason, again.

Exactly. Does this sound like a guy who knows he needs to make wholesale changes...

VERMIEL: “Maybe I’m seeing things, but I think we’ve passed through a little plateau defensively. That doesn’t mean we’re going to jump into the top ten or anything, but I think we’re a better team on defense right now than we’ve been at any time this year.”

GRETZ (incredulous at DV's statement): As you look at the tape where did you see that improvement?

VERMEIL: “I saw the linebackers, all three of them: Scott Fujita, Kawika Mitchell and Monty Beisel. They played as a unit very well. They weren’t overly tested in the running game but the combination of how they played, how they attacked the plays, how they attacked the screen, how they played inside and outside.

“Our secondary played pretty well, especially Dexter McCleon and Eric Warfield. Greg Wesley is back to playing like he’s capable of playing. The last two weeks he’s made a contribution and Shaunard Harts has been doing a good job.

“On the defensive line Jared Allen has been good, same with Eric Hicks. They were all playing hard. I still think our defensive line can play better than they did, but they played well enough to win."


He thinks the defense is finally coming together after we give up 30 points at home to the 5-10 R aiders? The only people he didn't praise by name were the DT's. I guess this means we're drafting DT again. I think you're right, whoman69.

Phobia
12-28-2004, 08:06 PM
Who did the Pats cut?

They cut 2 or 3 guys during the season. A couple of them were for special teams mistakes/penalties. But, IIRC, one of their DBs was cut right after the Chiefs game.

One of the Pats fans would need to come on and provide the details, but they do cut guys when the screw up.

Mr. Laz
12-28-2004, 08:22 PM
One of the Pats fans would need to come on and provide the details, but they do cut guys when the screw up.

Vermeil gives our screwups a "hug"

alanm
12-28-2004, 09:28 PM
Well, the only other choice is to not be fans of the team any more, and that really isn't much of an option for a fanatic, now is it? What you mean like root for.... The Bronco's?:Lin:I'd rather have someone put a bullet in my brain.:spock:

Chiefs Pantalones
12-28-2004, 10:26 PM
Nice....with thinking like this, I can understand why we havent won a Super Bowl in 30+ years and we are headed into year 16 of Carls 5 years plan. God, just once id love to hear from the Chiefs front office how pissed off they are about this year!! The fans would respect them more if they showed us how mad they are about how things have turned out this year or last.

How mad they are? Are you kidding? When Carl ran his smiling ass onto the field at the conclusion of that Titans game a couple weeks ago it looked as if we just secured a playoff spot or the division title or something. I think Carl and company are running the Chiefs like their own personal circus ride, or a big piggy bank.

Carl is a business man, not a football man. That's why Lamar keeps him around.

Chiefs Pantalones
12-28-2004, 10:32 PM
I like DV and all but one thing I don't like is this...and it's true...

His teams are soft, because he is soft. Teams play to the personality of their head coach and you can see it on the field. While we have pretty good players (emphasizing on offense) that work hard we are still soft as a TEAM because of DV.

Chiefs Pantalones
12-28-2004, 10:43 PM
I'm convinced that winning these last 4 games is the worst thing that could of happened.


This organization's judgement is already clouded before when we were a bad losing team, now that we are mediocre one we are going to be blind in the offseason, again.

Agreed. I don't really expect much this offseason. I will be surprised if we make a lot of changes.

2bikemike
12-28-2004, 10:44 PM
I like DV and all but one thing I don't like is this...and it's true...

His teams are soft, because he is soft. Teams play to the personality of their head coach and you can see it on the field. While we have pretty good players (emphasizing on offense) that work hard we are still soft as a TEAM because of DV.

I think that is BS. Its not that the team is soft. Its just a lack of fugging talent on defense. Otherwise this team would be fine.

BigRedChief
12-29-2004, 08:01 AM
I think that is BS. Its not that the team is soft. Its just a lack of fugging talent on defense. Otherwise this team would be fine.

It's because they give up big plays and the offense lets them down. Don't you listen to DV press conferences.:)

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 10:16 AM
Carl's history would say you are correct. DV's abysmal view that we have all the talent we need will certainly not be fixed either. Looking like the potential for a dismal offseason is in progress.

Somebody needs a history lesson.

In 1992, the Chiefs finished 10-6 and made the playoffs, but put up no points to the Chargers and lost. Carl responded by bringing in Montana and Allen.

In 1994, the Chiefs went 9-7, limped into the playoffs, and lost to Miami. The Chiefs got rid of Dave Adolph and brought in Gunther.

In 1998, despite going 13-3 the year before, Carl traded for Chester McGlockton and brought in Leslie O'Neal.

You're basing your whole argument on this last year, and calling it "history". Look, I'm not happy about this team either. But this is 100% pure bullshit and nothing more.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 10:19 AM
This is just an extension DV's style over substance emphasis. Substance would mean not drafting backup TE's and back to back FB's and instead drafting a CB or MLB or DE or ANYTHING that would help this pitiful defense.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see us draft a WR this year with our 1st pick.

This is almost laughable.

You can cry all you want about whether or not said draft picks are worth anything, but to say they simply ignored the defense is both ignorant and stupid.

They drafted Kris Wilson in the 2nd round, they drafted Omar Easy and the other FB in the 4th round.

They drafted Battle (a CB) in the 3rd and Mitchell (a MLB) in the 2nd.

I love this logic. There's no way to be wrong. Aristotle would be proud.

If they DON'T spend every draft pick on defense, they're idiots because they didn't. But if they do, they're idiots because everybody they pick is a bust.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 10:21 AM
I think that is BS. Its not that the team is soft. Its just a lack of fugging talent on defense. Otherwise this team would be fine.

You're right, this team isn't "soft".

They're too SAFE.

Nobody on this team, regardless of how poorly they play, FEARS for their job.

Vermeil is way too ****ing nice. It's time for him to go. We need a Tom Coughlin-type in here to KICK SOME ASS.

bricks
12-29-2004, 10:33 AM
I like DV and all but one thing I don't like is this...and it's true...

His teams are soft, because he is soft. Teams play to the personality of their head coach and you can see it on the field. While we have pretty good players (emphasizing on offense) that work hard we are still soft as a TEAM because of DV.

bingo! :bravo:

bricks
12-29-2004, 10:40 AM
i wish this team would get serious... I would like nothing more than the Chiefs to have teh kill all mentality that the Patriots have. If you fugg up tremendously... you are cut. I love that mentality. Instead, we got this patty cake - candy ass mentality... " Oh Julian Battle shows flashes... he is gonna be a great CB in this league someday... oh Bartee, he has tremendous upside..."

FUGG YOU ... YOU HAIRY FUGGWADS... flush the shit, and get real players, with skills... not potential to have skills... or these fuggin projects we see each year.

Fugg this.

a lot of what your saying is in large part the fault of Vermeil. Vermeil shares 2 qualities that human beings love. Quality #1. Is love. Quality #2. Is faith
He is so strong when it comes to those two qualities, it practically makes him blind.

BigChiefFan
12-29-2004, 10:57 AM
The bottomline isn't whether not Carl has or has not done anything in the past. The time is NOW to be gearing up for WINNING IT ALL!!! Will he do it? I'm sure Carl does have an idea of where the Chiefs want become stronger, but will Carl give it his all in delivering the puzzle pieces that make us a LEGIT Super Bowl contender? Will Lamar be willing to PAY what it takes to pursue upper-echelon players? That is the reality of the Carl Peterson era. Talk is cheap and so far Carl hasn't delivered. How much of that is his fault? I'm willing to give Carl credit, that he has made some good decisions. However, I think the bad, far outweigh the good and that seems to be part of the problem. Carl has way too many PROJECTS on the first day of the draft and that has come back to haunt us. I also think that the Chiefs are hand-strapped by signing bonus money. We are out of touch in this regard, in today's day and age to have to get Lamar's PERMISSION on a signing bonus of over $10 million is pathetic and seems that Lamar's frugileness has contributed to how much Carl can do with the cards he is dealt. I think the Chiefs play it safe way too much and that is why we are just competitive year in and year out. I don't know who's to blame, but it seems that the Chiefs want their cake and eat it, too. I think Carl should share in the blame, but I'm beginning to think ownership is the majority of the problem.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 11:30 AM
The bottomline isn't whether not Carl has or has not done anything in the past. The time is NOW to be gearing up for WINNING IT ALL!!! Will he do it? I'm sure Carl does have an idea of where the Chiefs want become stronger, but will Carl give it his all in delivering the puzzle pieces that make us a LEGIT Super Bowl contender? Will Lamar be willing to PAY what it takes to pursue upper-echelon players? That is the reality of the Carl Peterson era. Talk is cheap and so far Carl hasn't delivered. How much of that is his fault? I'm willing to give Carl credit, that he has made some good decisions. However, I think the bad, far outweigh the good and that seems to be part of the problem. Carl has way too many PROJECTS on the first day of the draft and that has come back to haunt us. I also think that the Chiefs are hand-strapped by signing bonus money. We are out of touch in this regard, in today's day and age to have to get Lamar's PERMISSION on a signing bonus of over $10 million is pathetic and seems that Lamar's frugileness has contributed to how much Carl can do with the cards he is dealt. I think the Chiefs play it safe way too much and that is why we are just competitive year in and year out. I don't know who's to blame, but it seems that the Chiefs want their cake and eat it, too. I think Carl should share in the blame, but I'm beginning to think ownership is the majority of the problem.

Hey, it wasn't me who said Carl's "history" is the reason we'll do nothing again this offseason. I was just pointing out -- correctly -- that such a statement is not based in fact.

If anything, Carl's "history" says we'll go out and spend $75M on free agents that turn out to be the next Dexter McCleon or Carlton Gray. :cuss:

BigChiefFan
12-29-2004, 11:37 AM
Hey, it wasn't me who said Carl's "history" is the reason we'll do nothing again this offseason. I was just pointing out -- correctly -- that such a statement is not based in fact.

If anything, Carl's "history" says we'll go out and spend $75M on free agents that turn out to be the next Dexter McCleon or Carlton Gray. :cuss:
I know. I think you made valid point regarding Carl's FA activeness.

Dr. Van Halen
12-29-2004, 11:46 AM
I'll go ahead and field your questions:

Will Carl "give it his all" to make us a Superbowl contender? Yes.

Will Lamar be willing to pay? Yes.

Let's start with Carl. He has tried to rebuild the defense through the draft primarily. We have a key free agent pickup on the D-line in Dalton, Barber was meant to be our free agent anchor at LB, and McCleon was meant to anchor the DBs with Warfield. We drafted J. Allen who could be D rookie of the year. Two of our starting LBs are injured, so we have had to play 1st and 2nd year backups. Not surprisingly, LB has been our weakest spot. Should Carl have predicted these injuries and brought in FAs? Which FAs would you have recommended to Carl? You do realize that most FA pickups are busts, don't you? Look at other teams. Ask Jacksonville how our coveted Hugh Douglas turned out.

You have a strange sense of perspective when it comes to Lamar Hunt. Saying Lamar doesn't care about the Chiefs winning is nuts. As far as Lamar being hesitant to pay out huge signing bonuses -- that's smart. Bonuses are guaranteed money. Very few FA's are worth the risk of that kind of penalty. Did you want to pay Grant Wistrom what he was asking? If you did, you suck at this kind of thing.

As far as the Chiefs org talking about how entertaining this offense is ... well, they're right. This offense is an entertaining product. What the hell are they supposed to do? Stomp around and yell at the media like some idiot whose never lost a game before?

This might lead you to talking about Vermeil being soft again. "Tough guy" coaches seldom work for long. Look at Parcells. There's a reason he leaves every team he coaches after a few years. Players are tired of his act. (I don't think you can really put the Patriots coach in this category, by the way. NE players don't fear for their jobs every time they take the field. He cut the DB after the Chiefs game more because of their injury situation at the position.)

BigChiefFan
12-29-2004, 12:04 PM
I'll go ahead and field your questions:

Will Carl "give it his all" to make us a Superbowl contender? Yes.

Will Lamar be willing to pay? Yes.

Let's start with Carl. He has tried to rebuild the defense through the draft primarily. We have a key free agent pickup on the D-line in Dalton, Barber was meant to be our free agent anchor at LB, and McCleon was meant to anchor the DBs with Warfield. We drafted J. Allen who could be D rookie of the year. Two of our starting LBs are injured, so we have had to play 1st and 2nd year backups. Not surprisingly, LB has been our weakest spot. Should Carl have predicted these injuries and brought in FAs? Which FAs would you have recommended to Carl? You do realize that most FA pickups are busts, don't you? Look at other teams. Ask Jacksonville how our coveted Hugh Douglas turned out.

You have a strange sense of perspective when it comes to Lamar Hunt. Saying Lamar doesn't care about the Chiefs winning is nuts. As far as Lamar being hesitant to pay out huge signing bonuses -- that's smart. Bonuses are guaranteed money. Very few FA's are worth the risk of that kind of penalty. Did you want to pay Grant Wistrom what he was asking? If you did, you suck at this kind of thing.

As far as the Chiefs org talking about how entertaining this offense is ... well, they're right. This offense is an entertaining product. What the hell are they supposed to do? Stomp around and yell at the media like some idiot whose never lost a game before?

This might lead you to talking about Vermeil being soft again. "Tough guy" coaches seldom work for long. Look at Parcells. There's a reason he leaves every team he coaches after a few years. Players are tired of his act. (I don't think you can really put the Patriots coach in this category, by the way. NE players don't fear for their jobs every time they take the field. He cut the DB after the Chiefs game more because of their injury situation at the position.)
For every High Douglas there is a Terrell Owens/Jevon Kearse in FA, that shouldn't excuse the leader of our team from ATTEMPTING to improve in FA, right? How about going on vacation the FIRST day of FA when you have the one of the worst defenses 3 years in a row (4 now)? Should I be pleased by that? How about paying the 3rd highest ticket prices in the ENTIRE in NFL for ENTERTAINMENT with no playoff victory in 12 YEARS!!!!!?

On injuries-ALL teams have them, YES-he should have had a back-up plan for injuries, that what DEPTH is for in the first place. Carl, KNEW full-well that Maslowski was coming off a major injury and his solution was to utilize another injured, with very little playing time, MLBer or a player that played DE in college and who had no experience playing the position. I won't give him a free pass on the injury bug. He knew full-well and didn't address the problem. He still ignored it after knowing Maslowski was out for the season and Trotter could have been had for the MINIMUM!!!!

Proofs in the pudding and Carl's record speaks for itself, so don't tell me he will do everything in his power to make us a legit Super Bowl contender. He hasn't delivered , yet and until then, it's just a bunch of hot air to appease the fans. We'll see. Action speaks volumes and Carl's moves in FA will show his committment very clearly.

Mr. Laz
12-29-2004, 12:11 PM
Hey, it wasn't me who said Carl's "history" is the reason we'll do nothing again this offseason. I was just pointing out -- correctly -- that such a statement is not based in fact.

If anything, Carl's "history" says we'll go out and spend $75M on free agents that turn out to be the next Dexter McCleon or Carlton Gray. :cuss:
actually IMO it's both

the chiefs dont draft particularly well OR do good in free agency.



bottomline is ... our talent evaluation is not good enough. Is that Carl? i dont know, but he's directly responsible for it. Maybe he needs to hire new scouts? maybe he needs to take more control?

i dont know, We dont know


but the reason we haven't won a playoff game in 10 years if because we haven't done a good enough job of acquiring talent.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 12:15 PM
NE players don't fear for their jobs every time they take the field.

No, but they also don't have the idea that no matter how bad they play, there's no adverse consequences.

Some of our players do.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 12:21 PM
actually IMO it's both

the chiefs dont draft particularly well OR do good in free agency.



bottomline is ... our talent evaluation is not good enough. Is that Carl? i dont know, but he's directly responsible for it. Maybe he needs to hire new scouts? maybe he needs to take more control?

i dont know, We dont know


but the reason we haven't won a playoff game in 10 years if because we have done a good enough job of acquiring talent.

Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, and yep.

ck_IN
12-29-2004, 12:25 PM
<i>VERMIEL: “Maybe I’m seeing things, but I think we’ve passed through a little plateau defensively. That doesn’t mean we’re going to jump into the top ten or anything, but I think we’re a better team on defense right now than we’ve been at any time this year.”</i>

This quote makes me sick. It shows that DV is oblivious to the facts of his defense. At least he's aware enough to say that we aren't top 10. We've played a few of the most inept, imploding, or injury riddled offenses in the league and DV is drawing conclusions about our defense getting better. Sickening.

Htismaque, say what you will and disagree if you want but our biggest defensive needs for his entire tenure have been CB, DT, DE, and MLB. I'll give him credit for trying to address DT but he's done zilch to address any of the other positions. Instead we've drafted TE's, FB's, WR's, and oline. He did reach on Battle who is listed as a CB but that listing is being generous at best.

Dr. Van Halen
12-29-2004, 12:25 PM
You're right about Trotter -- I remember the press conference he held where he cried that the Chiefs weren't even trying to lure him to KC, and that he might be stuck going back to the Eagles. Man, he was upset.

If Kearse is a major success story with 26 tackles and 7 sacks, then I guess Eric Hicks 54 tackles and 9 sacks the season before last was an all-world performance? An amazingly successful FA pickup is the exception to the rule ... much like an amazingly successful draft. Go through other teams' draft histories and just see how they do.

It's interesting that the tone of this board has shifted so quickly from Peterson can't draft to Peterson can't sign free agents.

Of course, I assume you guys just mean defensive free agents, considering that our offensive FA's are unusually good.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 12:44 PM
<i>VERMIEL: “Maybe I’m seeing things, but I think we’ve passed through a little plateau defensively. That doesn’t mean we’re going to jump into the top ten or anything, but I think we’re a better team on defense right now than we’ve been at any time this year.”</i>

This quote makes me sick. It shows that DV is oblivious to the facts of his defense. At least he's aware enough to say that we aren't top 10. We've played a few of the most inept, imploding, or injury riddled offenses in the league and DV is drawing conclusions about our defense getting better. Sickening.

Htismaque, say what you will and disagree if you want but our biggest defensive needs for his entire tenure have been CB, DT, DE, and MLB. I'll give him credit for trying to address DT but he's done zilch to address any of the other positions. Instead we've drafted TE's, FB's, WR's, and oline. He did reach on Battle who is listed as a CB but that listing is being generous at best.

The reason I disagree is because you're WRONG.

Yes, our biggest needs were CB, DT, DE, and MLB. To that end, we've drafted:

5 DT's, 2 DE's, 1 CB, 2 MLB's, and we've added at all of those positions in free agency.

If your argument was "we've had these needs and the players we've used to fill those holes SUCK" I'd agree with you. But saying we've done "zilch" to address those needs is dishonest.

Iowanian
12-29-2004, 12:46 PM
Is anyone listening to Carl Peterson's interview on 810?

He called out some of the coaching staff, Ryan Sims, and says they need LBs and Secondary Help.

His "biggest disappointment is that they Chiefs have gone from the 3rd Least penalized team to the 3rd most, and that through the 90's the Chiefs were Way UP in Giveaway-takeaway.....and for the first time since, the Chiefs are -4."

Iowanian
12-29-2004, 12:49 PM
On Larry Johnson Peterson says

27th pick out of 32...in Carl's opinion, best back on the board, outside of a big medical *, Willis McGuahey.....at the time, Priest was 2 weeks out of surgery. Decided to aquire draft picks to make up for lost picks for Sims(who he's not pleased with)....No decision for Carl.....Liked Johnson, glad to have him after evaluations..............."certainly an easy pick for myself...The only think Larry Johnson has lacked was oportunity to play....Frankly I was disappointed that he wasn't given a chance earlier in the year"

Iowanian
12-29-2004, 12:50 PM
"larry is a very candid guy"....He made some frank comments, and learned from them with the help of teamates.

He works hard, the head coach and LJ have put it behind them...He's produced to a point the team is pleased and knows they can trust him"

ck_IN
12-29-2004, 12:55 PM
<i>Yes, our biggest needs were CB, DT, DE, and MLB. To that end, we've drafted:

5 DT's, 2 DE's, 1 CB, 2 MLB's, and we've added at all of those positions in free agency.</i>

I've already mentioned Battle and I'd forgotten about Mitchell and Allen so I stand corrected there. As far as the quality of a Battle or Biesel or whatever saying they suck is the same as saying we haven't addressed the need. Battle is not a CB solution. Drafting him as if he is one is the same as not addressing it. In my book DV hasn't addressed the CB need in the draft since he's been here. Ditto for MLB and DE, Allen exempted.

Instead we've drafted two TE's, two FB's, three (I think) WR's. If these were the BAA I'd be fine with it but there's no way in hell Minnis, Baber, Easy, or Layne were the BAA.

Iowanian
12-29-2004, 12:56 PM
On trading a back..........

"why would we want to do that? In 1 play you can lose 1 running back...in 2 plays, you can lose 2.........In Philly in 1980, Dick and Carl lost 3 backs in 1 game.......these two have different styles that are complimentary"...nice 1-2 punch, and Johnson should be able to take some of Priests work load, to keep him fresh.

2....fans who want to trade a back, have a serious misunderstanding of the salary cap......Its not going to happen.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 01:01 PM
<i>Yes, our biggest needs were CB, DT, DE, and MLB. To that end, we've drafted:

5 DT's, 2 DE's, 1 CB, 2 MLB's, and we've added at all of those positions in free agency.</i>

I've already mentioned Battle and I'd forgotten about Mitchell and Allen so I stand corrected there. As far as the quality of a Battle or Biesel or whatever saying they suck is the same as saying we haven't addressed the need. Battle is not a CB solution. Drafting him as if he is one is the same as not addressing it. In my book DV hasn't addressed the CB need in the draft since he's been here. Ditto for MLB and DE, Allen exempted.

Instead we've drafted two TE's, two FB's, three (I think) WR's. If these were the BAA I'd be fine with it but there's no way in hell Minnis, Baber, Easy, or Layne were the BAA.

You'd have a valid point if we hadn't spent roughly 70% of our draft picks under Vermeil on defense...over the last 2 seasons, 100% of our free agent acquisitions were also on defense, namely DE, LB, and CB.

I'm sorry, but saying we haven't done enough and saying we've done nothing are TWO arguments, not one.

Iowanian
12-29-2004, 01:02 PM
Carl says he'd rather win a superbowl than sell out 10 games.

Predicts Pitt wins the superbowl.

Iowanian
12-29-2004, 01:04 PM
Carl said his biggest Mistake in KC was letting Donnie Edwards go.

He wanted to keep him, but defered to coaches. He put it squarely on Greg Robinson, who adamately told Vermeil he didn't like Edwards Play...

Deberg_1990
12-29-2004, 01:06 PM
He put it squarely on Greg Robinson, who adamately told Vermeil he didn't like Edwards Play...

WTF didnt he like exactly about his play??? I would love to know! He doesnt like players who actually have some talent??

Rausch
12-29-2004, 01:07 PM
Carl said his biggest Mistake in KC was letting Donnie Edwards go.

He wanted to keep him, but defered to coaches. He put it squarely on Greg Robinson, who adamately told Vermeil he didn't like Edwards Play...

Losing Hasty, Edwards, and Steve Martin (run stopping DL) really pissed me off. Thanks GROB...

Iowanian
12-29-2004, 01:08 PM
At the time, alot of posters, including myself thought Edwards was undersized, and he was making alot of tackles, but they were 5 yards downfield.

I admit I thought Barber was a better option at the time he arrived. Wrong.

The Bad Guy
12-29-2004, 01:09 PM
You're right about Trotter -- I remember the press conference he held where he cried that the Chiefs weren't even trying to lure him to KC, and that he might be stuck going back to the Eagles. Man, he was upset.

If Kearse is a major success story with 26 tackles and 7 sacks, then I guess Eric Hicks 54 tackles and 9 sacks the season before last was an all-world performance? An amazingly successful FA pickup is the exception to the rule ... much like an amazingly successful draft. Go through other teams' draft histories and just see how they do.

It's interesting that the tone of this board has shifted so quickly from Peterson can't draft to Peterson can't sign free agents.

Of course, I assume you guys just mean defensive free agents, considering that our offensive FA's are unusually good.

Trotter sat on the FA market for 4 months, noone sniffed his way before he tucked his tail between his legs and went back to Philly. If KC showed a slight interest in him in those 4 months, he likely would of jumped at any team who wanted him.

Kearse is an impact player. He has 7 sacks, but how many hurries? Ask Brian Dawkins, Lito Shepperd or Sheldon Brown how easy he makes their jobs.

You've watched the same Chiefs games I have, you've seen the speed Kearse has and you've seen the speed Hicks doesn't have. That makes a difference in a defense.

Carl Peterson can't do anything well. Defending him either way is a joke when teams he's put on the field haven't won a playoff game in 11 years.

The bottom line is getting to the Super Bowl. GMs don't get hired with aspirations that they can get to one AFC championship game and be satisfied with that in 11 years. Did you see the way that fool acted after we beat the Titans? It was like he won the SB.

The Eagles make it to 3 straight NFC championship games and they are the ones that go out and pickup TO and Kearse.

The Chiefs have a defense that's the laughing stock of the NFL, and what do they do? They stand pat.

That's why Carl Peterson sucks.

Rausch
12-29-2004, 01:10 PM
At the time, alot of posters, including myself thought Edwards was undersized, and he was making alot of tackles, but they were 5 yards downfield.

I admit I thought Barber was a better option at the time he arrived. Wrong.

I still think Barber is a good OLB, but he's scat to work with. Either a different MLB every Two weeks, different DE, or Wesley's been injured...

chiefz
12-29-2004, 01:17 PM
It just goes to show that with the parity of the NFL today that any team at any time is just a few lucky breaks between a 13-3 season with a playoff berth and an 8-8 or 7-9 with squat.

Guess that mean the salary cap is working?

Mr. Laz
12-29-2004, 01:19 PM
Trotter sat on the FA market for 4 months, noone sniffed his way before he tucked his tail between his legs and went back to Philly. If KC showed a slight interest in him in those 4 months, he likely would of jumped at any team who wanted him.

Kearse is an impact player. He has 7 sacks, but how many hurries? Ask Brian Dawkins, Lito Shepperd or Sheldon Brown how easy he makes their jobs.

You've watched the same Chiefs games I have, you've seen the speed Kearse has and you've seen the speed Hicks doesn't have. That makes a difference in a defense.

Carl Peterson can't do anything well. Defending him either way is a joke when teams he's put on the field haven't won a playoff game in 11 years.

The bottom line is getting to the Super Bowl. GMs don't get hired with aspirations that they can get to one AFC championship game and be satisfied with that in 11 years. Did you see the way that fool acted after we beat the Titans? It was like he won the SB.

The Eagles make it to 3 straight NFC championship games and they are the ones that go out and pickup TO and Kearse.

The Chiefs have a defense that's the laughing stock of the NFL, and what do they do? They stand pat.

That's why Carl Peterson sucks.



:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

bricks
12-29-2004, 01:19 PM
Losing Hasty, Edwards, and Steve Martin (run stopping DL) really pissed me off. Thanks GROB...

Hasty was old though, and non-servicable now..but, wait a minute am I misunderstanding you? Do you mean James Hasty as a player or coach?
Losing Edwards and Martin pissed me off too. :cuss:

Deberg_1990
12-29-2004, 01:21 PM
Trotter sat on the FA market for 4 months, noone sniffed his way before he tucked his tail between his legs and went back to Philly. If KC showed a slight interest in him in those 4 months, he likely would of jumped at any team who wanted him.

Kearse is an impact player. He has 7 sacks, but how many hurries? Ask Brian Dawkins, Lito Shepperd or Sheldon Brown how easy he makes their jobs.

You've watched the same Chiefs games I have, you've seen the speed Kearse has and you've seen the speed Hicks doesn't have. That makes a difference in a defense.

Carl Peterson can't do anything well. Defending him either way is a joke when teams he's put on the field haven't won a playoff game in 11 years.

The bottom line is getting to the Super Bowl. GMs don't get hired with aspirations that they can get to one AFC championship game and be satisfied with that in 11 years. Did you see the way that fool acted after we beat the Titans? It was like he won the SB.

The Eagles make it to 3 straight NFC championship games and they are the ones that go out and pickup TO and Kearse.

The Chiefs have a defense that's the laughing stock of the NFL, and what do they do? They stand pat.

That's why Carl Peterson sucks.


YAEH!!! Bravo!!! Couldnt have said it better myself.

dirk digler
12-29-2004, 01:22 PM
At the time, alot of posters, including myself thought Edwards was undersized, and he was making alot of tackles, but they were 5 yards downfield.

I admit I thought Barber was a better option at the time he arrived. Wrong.


That was a very interesting interview Carl just gave. I thought it was telling when Soren asked him if he had to do it all over again if he would draft Dwight Freeney or Ryan Simms. He said Freeney wasn't the type of pass rusher they were looking for but he gave a no comment when Soren asked if he would draft Simms again.

ck_IN
12-29-2004, 01:24 PM
<i>That was a very interesting interview Carl just gave. I thought it was telling when Soren asked him if he had to do it all over again if he would draft Dwight Freeney or Ryan Simms. He said Freeney wasn't the type of pass rusher they were looking for but he gave a no comment when Soren asked if he would draft Simms again.</i>

Let me get this straight, Freeney is leading the league in sacks and he isn't the type of pass rusher that CP wants? Maybe it's not just DV that's clueless.

bricks
12-29-2004, 01:25 PM
YAEH!!! Bravo!!! Couldnt have said it better myself.

you forgot the bravo clap :p

Deberg_1990
12-29-2004, 01:25 PM
That was a very interesting interview Carl just gave. I thought it was telling when Soren asked him if he had to do it all over again if he would draft Dwight Freeney or Ryan Simms. He said Freeney wasn't the type of pass rusher they were looking for but he gave a no comment when Soren asked if he would draft Simms again.

Wow, thats pretty telling......To be fair, alot of teams at the time thought Freeney was undersized and thoght Indy might have reached for him, so i can understand why some teams might have passed on him. Ill bet Carl would love to go punch Bunting in the mouth about Sims.

Rausch
12-29-2004, 01:32 PM
actually IMO it's both

the chiefs dont draft particularly well OR do good in free agency.



bottomline is ... our talent evaluation is not good enough. Is that Carl? i dont know, but he's directly responsible for it. Maybe he needs to hire new scouts? maybe he needs to take more control?

DV admitted that her turned the entire defense over to GROB and let him pick the talent he wanted.

Now, you look back and most of our draft picks have been on the defensive side of the ball those three years. And those defensive draft picks have sucked.

Now, this year, Gun got to pick his defensive players. Now you see FA underdogs like Dalton play great and rookie picks (Allen) blow up. We did not see that before. I fully expect Gun to turn this defense around... :)

dirk digler
12-29-2004, 01:35 PM
Wow, thats pretty telling......To be fair, alot of teams at the time thought Freeney was undersized and thoght Indy might have reached for him, so i can understand why some teams might have passed on him. Ill bet Carl would love to go punch Bunting in the mouth about Sims.

I know alot of people like Freeney but they guy doesn't get many sacks on grass fields, I would like to see how many sacks he gets on the fast turf in Indy compared to grass fields. Roaf owned him both times when they played here.
CP making a no comment about drafting Simms is about as close as your are going to get for admitting a mistake from CP.

Deberg_1990
12-29-2004, 01:36 PM
DV admitted that her turned the entire defense over to GROB and let him pick the talent he wanted.

Now, you look back and most of our draft picks have been on the defensive side of the ball those three years. And those defensive draft picks have sucked.

Now, this year, Gun got to pick his defensive players. Now you see FA underdogs like Dalton play great and rookie picks (Allen) blow up. We did not see that before. I fully expect Gun to turn this defense around... :)


Good point. I think Whitlock wrote a story about a year or 2 ago that showed that not one player under Grob had improved over 3 years and in fact a few had regressed (Hicks)

bricks
12-29-2004, 01:36 PM
Is anyone listening to Carl Peterson's interview on 810?

He called out some of the coaching staff, Ryan Sims, and says they need LBs and Secondary Help.

His "biggest disappointment is that they Chiefs have gone from the 3rd Least penalized team to the 3rd most, and that through the 90's the Chiefs were Way UP in Giveaway-takeaway.....and for the first time since, the Chiefs are -4."

Can't agree with Carl anymore about the penalties. The Chiefs did a complete 360 in the penality category. As for the TO's, it's simple, we don't force to's on defense, cause we don't have any playmakers, impact players on defense. So go out and get some playmakers, impact players on defense Carl :cuss:

Deberg_1990
12-29-2004, 01:37 PM
I know alot of people like Freeney but they guy doesn't get many sacks on grass fields, I would like to see how many sacks he gets on the fast turf in Indy compared to grass fields. Roaf owned him both times when they played here.
CP making a no comment about drafting Simms is about as close as your are going to get for admitting a mistake from CP.

I agree..Freeney is the modern day Derrick Thomas.....DT was critized as well for being better on turf than grass and being undersized.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 01:40 PM
DV admitted that her turned the entire defense over to GROB and let him pick the talent he wanted.

Now, you look back and most of our draft picks have been on the defensive side of the ball those three years. And those defensive draft picks have sucked.

Now, this year, Gun got to pick his defensive players. Now you see FA underdogs like Dalton play great and rookie picks (Allen) blow up. We did not see that before. I fully expect Gun to turn this defense around... :)

Wow, thanks for giving me some hope dude.

htismaqe
12-29-2004, 01:41 PM
I agree..Freeney is the modern day Derrick Thomas.....DT was critized as well for being better on turf than grass and being undersized.

Whoa, let's not compare Freeney to DT just yet. Freeney has yet to become the kind of force that teams have to create special game plans for...

dirk digler
12-29-2004, 01:44 PM
Whoa, let's not compare Freeney to DT just yet. Freeney has yet to become the kind of force that teams have to create special game plans for...


I agree. If Freeney shows up in the playoffs and plays great then I might have a different opinion of him but right now he is a very one dimensional player IMO.

Rausch
12-29-2004, 01:44 PM
Wow, thanks for giving me some hope dude.

It's not that hard. Even with 2 average WR's our offense is unstopable. We average an INSANE amount of Points per game...

Our defense doesn't have to be top 10, but it MUST be able to stop an opposing offense in the last two minutes. I must get a stop when it NEEDs to get a stop to win the game.

We haven't been able to do that, and a big reason why is because we don't have any Hasty/Marc Collins/DT/Neil Smith type playmakers.

bricks
12-29-2004, 01:49 PM
DV admitted that her turned the entire defense over to GROB and let him pick the talent he wanted.

Now, you look back and most of our draft picks have been on the defensive side of the ball those three years. And those defensive draft picks have sucked.

Now, this year, Gun got to pick his defensive players. Now you see FA underdogs like Dalton play great and rookie picks (Allen) blow up. We did not see that before. I fully expect Gun to turn this defense around... :)

Our only concern is, the clock is ticking, our players on offense are getting older, DV, CP and the rest of the crew might be all gone after next year. So, if he is going to do it, he may have no option, but, to do it this off-season. He may only have 1 year. Unless, everybody decides to renew there contracts, and DV decides to coach till he's 70, Priest Holmes plays till he's 34, Willie Roaf, Shields, Richardson, Kennison, Green, decide to stay a couple of more years. Then maybe, just maybe it'll give Gun enough time to rebuild this defense the way he wants it. That's what I'm hoping 4 anyway, everybody stays at least a couple of more years. I don't feel confident he can do it all in 1 year. Anyway, that's my opinion Rausch. The point, I'm trying to make is it may be too little, too late to rebuild this defense to becoming good again, along
with maintaining the continuity of our offense.

morphius
12-29-2004, 02:05 PM
At the time, alot of posters, including myself thought Edwards was undersized, and he was making alot of tackles, but they were 5 yards downfield.

I admit I thought Barber was a better option at the time he arrived. Wrong.
Yup, and they were normally after he missed them the first time and had to turn around and catch them from behind. I still don't miss him that much honestly.

Rausch
12-29-2004, 02:07 PM
Our only concern is, the clock is ticking, our players on offense are getting older, DV, CP and the rest of the crew might be all gone after next year. So, if he is going to do it, he may have no option, but, to do it this off-season. He may only have 1 year. Unless, everybody decides to renew there contracts, and DV decides to coach till he's 70, Priest Holmes plays till he's 34, Willie Roaf, Shields, Richardson, Kennison, Green, decide to stay a couple of more years.

First, there is no reason to worry about our offense. Shields can play three more years if he wants to (read: we're in playoff/SB contention.) Weigman and Watters have plenty of good years left in them. Our only worry is Meat Roaf. So, other than Left Tackle we're fine. But we do need a standout Left T .

Gonzo is in his prime. Both our WR's are average, which doesn't seem to matter. We sign another average FA wr to pair with Parker or one of our other younger WR's and we'll be fine.

Green is looking as good as ever. He can play another 2-3 years if he wants to. And he does. Holmes still looks great and if he goes down we now know LJ can do get the job done. QB and HB aren't any worry.

I see no problem maintaining this offense for 2-3 years unless we have an unfortunate amount of career ending injuries.


The point, I'm trying to make is it may be too little, too late to rebuild this defense to becoming good again, along
with maintaining the continuity of our offense.

Most of our defensive issues are in the Secondary. We need a stud CB. That's going to be hard to come by. We also need to see if Harts can cover as good as he tackles and is in run support. If so, we're fine there. Wesley, when healhty, is a stud.

At LB the only real weakness I see is at MLB. We need a stud there. Again, not easy to come by. There will be 2 or 3 solid vets available in this offseason though (come on Bell!)

At D line I think we look good, save Hicks. Hicks needs to go. Allen is turning into a pass rushing stud and our DT's are young and large. Browning is a solid fill in anywhere on the line and provides plug-n-play depth. I wouldn't spend big $$$ here.

So we're looking at two impact players, at MLB and CB, to really turn this defense around. I can see that happening in one offseason. Might have to make a trade to do it, but it can be done... :)

Dr. Van Halen
12-29-2004, 02:52 PM
Trotter sat on the FA market for 4 months, noone sniffed his way before he tucked his tail between his legs and went back to Philly. If KC showed a slight interest in him in those 4 months, he likely would of jumped at any team who wanted him.

Kearse is an impact player. He has 7 sacks, but how many hurries? Ask Brian Dawkins, Lito Shepperd or Sheldon Brown how easy he makes their jobs.

You've watched the same Chiefs games I have, you've seen the speed Kearse has and you've seen the speed Hicks doesn't have. That makes a difference in a defense.

Carl Peterson can't do anything well. Defending him either way is a joke when teams he's put on the field haven't won a playoff game in 11 years.

The bottom line is getting to the Super Bowl. GMs don't get hired with aspirations that they can get to one AFC championship game and be satisfied with that in 11 years. Did you see the way that fool acted after we beat the Titans? It was like he won the SB.

The Eagles make it to 3 straight NFC championship games and they are the ones that go out and pickup TO and Kearse.

The Chiefs have a defense that's the laughing stock of the NFL, and what do they do? They stand pat.

That's why Carl Peterson sucks.

The Sporting News called Kearse one of the most overrated players in
the NFL. I think that is a reach -- Kearse's biggest flaw has been his health. That's interesting about Kearse because I have read several posts on the Eagles board saying that he is not at all worth the money he was paid and has the potential to be the biggest bust FA pickup of the year.

Trotter sat on the market for four months because his agent was asking for more money than he was worth. He was REFUSING to sign for a reasonable amount. Holmgren and Tice both said he was overrated and not worth what he was asking for. In the end, he decided he might as well go back to the Eagles if he wasn't going to get the insane amount he was asking.

Look, it's nice to argue from emotion, but saying that Peterson can't do anything well is ridiculous. Saying that he can't draft defense is wrong, considering the Chiefs defense of the 1990's. Saying that he can't draft offense is wrong, considering the team now.

Carl makes mistakes. He's probably past his prime. There was a bunch of crap FA's out there last year -- and there will likely be more crap this year. Blaming it all on Carl is dumb.

Mr. Laz
12-29-2004, 02:56 PM
DV admitted that her turned the entire defense over to GROB and let him pick the talent he wanted.

Now, you look back and most of our draft picks have been on the defensive side of the ball those three years. And those defensive draft picks have sucked.

Now, this year, Gun got to pick his defensive players. Now you see FA underdogs like Dalton play great and rookie picks (Allen) blow up. We did not see that before. I fully expect Gun to turn this defense around... :)
cool, so we don't need a General manager since our Coordinators are the ones calling the shots.



we can save some money for another free agent :thumb:

bricks
12-29-2004, 03:06 PM
cool, so we don't need a General manager since our Coordinators are the ones calling the shots.



we can save some money for another free agent :thumb:

Heck, I trust Guns defensive mind over Grobs anyday

Mr. Laz
12-29-2004, 03:14 PM
Heck, I trust Guns defensive mind over Grobs anyday
hehe... not my sarcastic point :)


our talent level shouldn't flux up and down based on whether a friggin coordinator has a good year or not.

our personnel dept should over rule any and all bad decision made.


they need to ask Gunther what "type" of player he needs for his scheme, they should ask Gunther for his input ... but the bottomline decision needs to be made at a higher level than offensive/defensive coordinator.


blaming Robinson is a cop out by the people in power who dont want to take responsibility and want an excuse in case something goes wrong.

bricks
12-29-2004, 03:26 PM
hehe... not my sarcastic point :)


our talent level shouldn't flux up and down based on whether a friggin coordinator has a good year or not.

our personnel dept should over rule any and all bad decision made.


they need to ask Gunther what "type" of player he needs for his scheme, they should ask Gunther for his input ... but the bottomline decision needs to be made a higher level than offensive/defensive coordinator.


blaming Robinson is a cop out by the people in power who dont want to take responsibility and want an excuse in case something goes wrong.

That's true. Peterson has to pull up his socks, roll up sleeves and get to work.
I see the Robinson situation as a scapegoat for us having a bad defense. all decisions should be authorized and finalized by Carl. But, Carl did say if we happen to have a bad year, I could swear it was in direct relations to our personnel decisions. He said, quote "the buck stops here. Blame me". Something similar to that anyway. He did say that, Laz.

philfree
12-29-2004, 05:16 PM
Originally Posted by The Bad Guy
Trotter sat on the FA market for 4 months, noone sniffed his way before he tucked his tail between his legs and went back to Philly. If KC showed a slight interest in him in those 4 months, he likely would of jumped at any team who wanted him.


I thought Trotter might be a good Vet free agent pick up and I expressed that on the Planet more than once. I never heard of any team making an offer for him and then he signed back with the Eagles for the min. I figured that's where he wanted to be. I saw a quote from him saying he should have never left Philly so I'm sure we had a chance to sign him. I've seen him make a few plays this year but when I look at his numbers they're no better then Mitchells. I know there's more to it then just numbers but at this point I don't think he would of been a difference maker on our team. :shrug:

PhilFree :arrow:

Logical
12-29-2004, 05:23 PM
DV admitted that her turned the entire defense over to GROB and let him pick the talent he wanted.

Now, you look back and most of our draft picks have been on the defensive side of the ball those three years. And those defensive draft picks have sucked.

Now, this year, Gun got to pick his defensive players. Now you see FA underdogs like Dalton play great and rookie picks (Allen) blow up. We did not see that before. I fully expect Gun to turn this defense around... :)

Allen did do well, but you can tell how low our expectations have become when we find ourselves thinking a marginal performer like Dalton blew up.:shake:

Chiefs Pantalones
12-29-2004, 07:32 PM
Trotter sat on the FA market for 4 months, noone sniffed his way before he tucked his tail between his legs and went back to Philly. If KC showed a slight interest in him in those 4 months, he likely would of jumped at any team who wanted him.

Kearse is an impact player. He has 7 sacks, but how many hurries? Ask Brian Dawkins, Lito Shepperd or Sheldon Brown how easy he makes their jobs.

You've watched the same Chiefs games I have, you've seen the speed Kearse has and you've seen the speed Hicks doesn't have. That makes a difference in a defense.

Carl Peterson can't do anything well. Defending him either way is a joke when teams he's put on the field haven't won a playoff game in 11 years.

The bottom line is getting to the Super Bowl. GMs don't get hired with aspirations that they can get to one AFC championship game and be satisfied with that in 11 years. Did you see the way that fool acted after we beat the Titans? It was like he won the SB.

The Eagles make it to 3 straight NFC championship games and they are the ones that go out and pickup TO and Kearse.

The Chiefs have a defense that's the laughing stock of the NFL, and what do they do? They stand pat.

That's why Carl Peterson sucks.

100% agree. :thumb:

shaneo69
12-30-2004, 08:03 AM
Allen did do well, but you can tell how low our expectations have become when we find ourselves thinking a marginal performer like Dalton blew up.:shake:

I agree. I still don't think Dalton's starting material, but the rest of our crappy defense (i.e. Sims) makes him look good because he gets into the backfield every once in awhile. Dalton's continuing presence in the lineup just makes Siavii look more like a bust.

shaneo69
12-30-2004, 08:12 AM
Look, it's nice to argue from emotion, but saying that Peterson can't do anything well is ridiculous. Saying that he can't draft defense is wrong, considering the Chiefs defense of the 1990's. Saying that he can't draft offense is wrong, considering the team now.

Blaming it all on Carl is dumb.

This is such B.S. You're giving Peterson credit for drafting our current offense? Fact: Only 2 of 11 starters were drafted by Peterson.

And you give Peterson credit for drafting our defense of the '90's? He inherited Neil Smith, Bill Maas, Dino Hackett, Deron Cherry, Lloyd Burruss, Kevin Ross, and Albert Lewis from the previous regime.

Once again, someone uses the bogus excuse that you can't blame just one person in the Chiefs organization for not winning a playoff game since '93 and for missing the playoffs in six out of the past seven seasons; therefore, nobody deserves to be fired. B. fuggin S.

Chiefnj
12-30-2004, 08:25 AM
blaming Robinson is a cop out by the people in power who dont want to take responsibility and want an excuse in case something goes wrong.


I don't usually agree with Laz lately, but on this point I do.

I'm sure GROB was given room to play his scheme's and offer his input, but there is no way a coordinator is given power over the draft and free agency. After one successful year a coordinator could be gone - offered a head coaching position in the NFL or college or made a coordinator/assistant head coach. A team isn't going to place the future plans of that team in the hands of the OC or DC.

For those who think now that Gun is back and the talent level has risen dramatically (and he is the reason for it) how do you explain Bartee, Stills, Dennis and Atkins?

KCTitus
12-30-2004, 08:39 AM
They cut 2 or 3 guys during the season. A couple of them were for special teams mistakes/penalties. But, IIRC, one of their DBs was cut right after the Chiefs game.

False...you're thinking about Earthwind Moreland and he's still on the active roster for NE.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/rosters/NE

KCTitus
12-30-2004, 08:43 AM
Wow....absolutely wonderful read. Glad to see everyone's enjoying genious (chiefsplanet spelling) week on the BB. I'll be back on Monday.

see ya!

gblowfish
12-30-2004, 09:25 AM
I was thinking about the defense this morning, and how at the beginning of the year we were all hoping they'd be in the top half of the league (16th or better). At last look we were 30th or 31st out of 32 teams? And absolute worst on pass defense.

Pass defense is composed of pass rush plus coverage skills. Here's how our guys have done so far this year, and how much we pay them (not counting signing bonuses):

Pass Rush:
Sims
$535,000
13 tackles, 2 sacks.

Hicks:
$535,000
21 tackles, 4 sacks

Siavii (highest draft pick in 2004)
8 tackles, 1 sack.

Allen:
$230,000
26 tackles, 9 sacks.

Pass Coverage:
Warfield:
$2.5 mill
49 tackles
4 Interceptions

Woods:
$660,000
35 tackles
0 interceptions

Bartee:
$550,000
40 tackles
O CAREER interceptions

Battle:
$305,000
16 tackles
O interceptions.

That's not to mention what we paid Maz and Barber this year, and what we got from them, which was basically zippo.

Bartee just can't play corner. Maybe they can convert him to a safety or let him direct traffic in the parking lot. What really bugs me is Ryan Sims. He got somewhere around $7 mill as a signing bonus. He's supposed to anchor the line, and he got outplayed by both Dalton and Browning this year. Plus we got nothing out of Vonnie Holliday this year, Jared Allen took his job.

In the secondary, Woods and Battle have both been useless this year. McCleon has been worse than last year. We really need about 5 new starters on defense: A DT, probably 2 LB's, a starting CB and a Safety. That's minimum...to make an impact. I feel sorry for Gun having to play this crappy hand.

Dr. Van Halen
12-30-2004, 11:10 AM
This is such B.S. You're giving Peterson credit for drafting our current offense? Fact: Only 2 of 11 starters were drafted by Peterson.

And you give Peterson credit for drafting our defense of the '90's? He inherited Neil Smith, Bill Maas, Dino Hackett, Deron Cherry, Lloyd Burruss, Kevin Ross, and Albert Lewis from the previous regime.

Once again, someone uses the bogus excuse that you can't blame just one person in the Chiefs organization for not winning a playoff game since '93 and for missing the playoffs in six out of the past seven seasons; therefore, nobody deserves to be fired. B. fuggin S.


You know what? You have a really good point about our defense. I went back and looked at NFLdrafthistory.com and was amazed at how many of our picks in the 90's were spent on trying to build the offense. The best I could give Peterson credit for was D. Thomas, D. Carter, D. Edwards, Woods, Tongue, and Wesley. (And for all we know that was Marty pulling the strings.)

About our offense ... I heard the claim on the radio that we only drafted 2 of 11 guys. That's wrong. Of the current starters you have Hall, Shields, Gonzalez, Black, and Johnson. That's five. If you count guys that we picked up and they played their first game with us, you can throw in Richardson and Waters. That's 7 of 11. Of those seven, four are going to the Pro Bowl and two are possible Hall of Fame material.

I have a hard time faulting the Chiefs for the offense. They have had some great draft picks and some amazing FA pickups.

Our defense is another story. The Chiefs have failed to improve our defense. The argument that they haven't tried is crap. They tried, but their attempt was misguided, so they failed in their attempt.

People who say that Peterson and Hunt don't care about winning and only care about putting people in the stands are just repeating the garbage they hear on sports talk radio. I believe it was Keitzman who first started making this claim three or four years ago, then Jack Harry (who easily is the worst sports "talent" in KC) picked it up as part of his senile mantra. It's crap from people with a grudge against not only Peterson but also against the fact that football is more popular than baseball. Sounds strange, but trust me it's true.

BigChiefFan
12-30-2004, 11:25 AM
You know what? You have a really good point about our defense. I went back and looked at NFLdrafthistory.com and was amazed at how many of our picks in the 90's were spent on trying to build the offense. The best I could give Peterson credit for was D. Thomas, D. Carter, D. Edwards, Woods, Tongue, and Wesley. (And for all we know that was Marty pulling the strings.)

About our offense ... I heard the claim on the radio that we only drafted 2 of 11 guys. That's wrong. Of the current starters you have Hall, Shields, Gonzalez, Black, and Johnson. That's five. If you count guys that we picked up and they played their first game with us, you can throw in Richardson and Waters. That's 7 of 11. Of those seven, four are going to the Pro Bowl and two are possible Hall of Fame material.

I have a hard time faulting the Chiefs for the offense. They have had some great draft picks and some amazing FA pickups.

Our defense is another story. The Chiefs have failed to improve our defense. The argument that they haven't tried is crap. They tried, but their attempt was misguided, so they failed in their attempt.

People who say that Peterson and Hunt don't care about winning and only care about putting people in the stands are just repeating the garbage they hear on sports talk radio. I believe it was Keitzman who first started making this claim three or four years ago, then Jack Harry (who easily is the worst sports "talent" in KC) picked it up as part of his senile mantra. It's crap from people with a grudge against not only Peterson but also against the fact that football is more popular than baseball. Sounds strange, but trust me it's true.
People have a grugde because the proof is in the pudding and Carl has excuse after excuse on why it can't get done. He's had 16 seasons to make an impact and his team hasn't won a playoff game in over a DECADE!!!! We also have only made the playoffs ONCE in SEVEN YEARS!!!! All this and King Carl comes out and says yet another ticket increase is in the making, after Lamar himself said the ticket prices shouldn't even be as high as they are. They are full of shit and playing the PR game and some still buy it. Please show me where the King has excelled in over a decade ( other than profitability) and why should he still be given a free pass? Other than the fans in the seats, Carl has failed and you're still trying to serve the same crap the Chiefs PR dishes out. Next, you'll tell me I'm not a true fan.

Dr. Van Halen
12-30-2004, 11:58 AM
People have a grugde because the proof is in the pudding and Carl has excuse after excuse on why it can't get done. He's had 16 seasons to make an impact and his team hasn't won a playoff game in over a DECADE!!!! We also have only made the playoffs ONCE in SEVEN YEARS!!!! All this and King Carl comes out and says yet another ticket increase is in the making, after Lamar himself said the ticket prices shouldn't even be as high as they are. They are full of shit and playing the PR game and some still buy it. Please show me where the King has excelled in over a decade ( other than profitability) and why should he still be given a free pass? Other than the fans in the seats, Carl has failed and you're still trying to serve the same crap the Chiefs PR dishes out. Next, you'll tell me I'm not a true fan.


You're right. I'm dancing in the aisles with Carl over lack of success. We have lunches together and laugh and sing funny songs about how much the Chiefs have sucked on defense. Weeeee! What times!

Peterson has excelled at putting our offense together. It is amazing. The defense sucks. Peterson has done very poorly there. I don't think I have given Peterson a free pass. What I'm doing is not refusing to give him credit for what he has done well.

You know, why is it that it's okay to defend the Royals saying that "oh, it's great to just go watch the game with your family," but say the Chiefs are fun to watch and suddenly you are a corporate whore. Using your evaluation criteria for the Chiefs, the Royals should be folded immediately.

shaneo69
12-30-2004, 12:17 PM
You're right. I'm dancing in the aisles with Carl over lack of success. We have lunches together and laugh and sing funny songs about how much the Chiefs have sucked on defense. Weeeee! What times!

Peterson has excelled at putting our offense together. It is amazing. The defense sucks. Peterson has done very poorly there. I don't think I have given Peterson a free pass. What I'm doing is not refusing to give him credit for what he has done well.

You know, why is it that it's okay to defend the Royals saying that "oh, it's great to just go watch the game with your family," but say the Chiefs are fun to watch and suddenly you are a corporate whore. Using your evaluation criteria for the Chiefs, the Royals should be folded immediately.

Who in the hell is defending the Royals? Are you trying to change topics?

Rufus, your rant against sports talk radio also holds no water here because I live in St. Louis, and I can assure you that sports talk radio hosts here don't sit around ripping Carl Peterson. So I have not been influenced in any way by Jack Harry, Keitzman, or anyone else in KC radio.

And calling Dante Hall, Jordan Black, and Larry Johnson starters in this offense when they're only playing because of injuries to Morton, Welbourn, and Holmes is a joke. Now if they begin next season as starters, then go ahead and call Carl a genius for drafting them.

The Bad Guy
12-30-2004, 12:43 PM
The Sporting News called Kearse one of the most overrated players in
the NFL. I think that is a reach -- Kearse's biggest flaw has been his health. That's interesting about Kearse because I have read several posts on the Eagles board saying that he is not at all worth the money he was paid and has the potential to be the biggest bust FA pickup of the year.

Trotter sat on the market for four months because his agent was asking for more money than he was worth. He was REFUSING to sign for a reasonable amount. Holmgren and Tice both said he was overrated and not worth what he was asking for. In the end, he decided he might as well go back to the Eagles if he wasn't going to get the insane amount he was asking.

Look, it's nice to argue from emotion, but saying that Peterson can't do anything well is ridiculous. Saying that he can't draft defense is wrong, considering the Chiefs defense of the 1990's. Saying that he can't draft offense is wrong, considering the team now.

Carl makes mistakes. He's probably past his prime. There was a bunch of crap FA's out there last year -- and there will likely be more crap this year. Blaming it all on Carl is dumb.

Are you serious with this bullshit?

Why is it ridiculous? He couldn't field an average offense with the defense he had, and he can't field an average defense with a good offense.

Who did he draft that was so good on defense? Derrick Thomas, Donnie Edwards, Dale Carter.

That's it.

Who did he draft that's so good on offense? Will Shields, Tony Gonzalez.

That's it. But don't let reality cloud your judgement. Don't tell me I post about emotion when you're the one kissing the ass of Carl Peterson.

Green, Roaf, Holmes were trades and they all came from Vermeil's insight. Do you really think the Chiefs would of sniffed at all 3 guys without Vermeil here? I don't.

I can tell you don't like accountability. When a man takes a GM job, he takes on the blame as well. Who's fault is it that the team hasn't won a playoff game in 11 years? There have been 3 different head coaches in that time.

But there's been only one GM.

Look at all the awful draft picks..Trezelle Jenkins, Rashaan Shehee, Mike Cloud, Greg Hill, Sylvester Morris, Harvey Williams..Those are just off the top of my head.

I guess they weren't Peterson's fault either.:rolleyes:

There are 2 other teams besides the Chiefs that haven't won a playoff game in 11 years. We are in the bottom percentile of the NFL in playoff wins and who does that fall on?

The GM who has been here the whole time.

Who would you blame it on?

The Bad Guy
12-30-2004, 12:46 PM
You're right. I'm dancing in the aisles with Carl over lack of success. We have lunches together and laugh and sing funny songs about how much the Chiefs have sucked on defense. Weeeee! What times!

Peterson has excelled at putting our offense together. It is amazing. The defense sucks. Peterson has done very poorly there. I don't think I have given Peterson a free pass. What I'm doing is not refusing to give him credit for what he has done well.

You know, why is it that it's okay to defend the Royals saying that "oh, it's great to just go watch the game with your family," but say the Chiefs are fun to watch and suddenly you are a corporate whore. Using your evaluation criteria for the Chiefs, the Royals should be folded immediately.

Peterson excelled at putting the offense together?

You're right, Vermeil and his pedigree of offense had nothing to do with the development of the offense.

I'm sure Trent Green, Willie Roaf, and Priest Holmes would of been here without Vermeil.

BigChiefFan
12-30-2004, 12:57 PM
You're right. I'm dancing in the aisles with Carl over lack of success. We have lunches together and laugh and sing funny songs about how much the Chiefs have sucked on defense. Weeeee! What times!

Peterson has excelled at putting our offense together. It is amazing. The defense sucks. Peterson has done very poorly there. I don't think I have given Peterson a free pass. What I'm doing is not refusing to give him credit for what he has done well.

You know, why is it that it's okay to defend the Royals saying that "oh, it's great to just go watch the game with your family," but say the Chiefs are fun to watch and suddenly you are a corporate whore. Using your evaluation criteria for the Chiefs, the Royals should be folded immediately.First of all I have given Peterson credit for some good moves in the past, that is why I think I am more than entitled to call him out when I don't think winning the Super Bowl is priority one for the Chiefs under his watch. You try this duck and weave crap and are getting away from the heart of the subject and that is Carl has failed in getting the Chiefs a Lombardi Trophy. You can spin it, defend it, whatever you want, but don't act as if the truth isn't the truth. Sure Carl wants to win the Super Bowl as long as it doesn't cut into the profit margin, but that is the entire point and you want to justify his tenure as something UnGodly. The truth is we haven't won a ****ing playoff game in over a decade under his command. A DECADE-do realize how long that is? He said the buck stops with him, why won't you let it?

Dr. Van Halen
12-30-2004, 02:33 PM
[QUOTE=BigChiefFan]Sure Carl wants to win the Super Bowl as long as it doesn't cut into the profit margin, but that is the entire point and you want to justify his tenure as something UnGodly. QUOTE]

THIS is what I am calling crap. Saying Peterson doesn't want to win or only cares about filling seats. There is absolutely no indication or evidence of this. Because he can't draft defense? Because he hasn't signed a cap-killer free agent?

I agree that Peterson has effed up our team -- but to say that he isn't trying is wrong.

Peterson excelled at putting the offense together?

You're right, Vermeil and his pedigree of offense had nothing to do with the development of the offense.

I'm sure Trent Green, Willie Roaf, and Priest Holmes would of been here without Vermeil.

I love it, Bad Guy. Any good move can't be credited to Peterson. Any bad move was 100% his doing. Either the buck stops with Peterson or it doesn't. You can't say the buck stops with Peterson ... unless it was something good that was done. He should get overall credit and overall blame.

You have given him plenty of blame. I'm trying to give him some credit. I don't join the Peterson = Hitler parade, so I must be kissing Carl's ass.

Yes, we're at the bottom of the NFL in playoff wins and yet were at the top in overal record for the 90's. It's ridiculous, it sucks, we should have won more, it makes me pissed off, but DON'T run around with your head up your ass acting like we've been the Arizona Cardinals for the past f***ing decade, all right?

shaneo69
12-30-2004, 04:36 PM
Yes, we're at the bottom of the NFL in playoff wins and yet were at the top in overal record for the 90's. It's ridiculous, it sucks, we should have won more, it makes me pissed off, but DON'T run around with your head up your ass acting like we've been the Arizona Cardinals for the past f***ing decade, all right?

Uh, the Cardinals have won more playoff games than us during the past decade.

jettio
12-30-2004, 05:02 PM
Hey, it wasn't me who said Carl's "history" is the reason we'll do nothing again this offseason. I was just pointing out -- correctly -- that such a statement is not based in fact.

If anything, Carl's "history" says we'll go out and spend $75M on free agents that turn out to be the next Dexter McCleon or Carlton Gray. :cuss:

I think McCleon's recent performance shows that he is still a decent NFL CB, but that he was too injured to be on the field earlier in the year, when he was exploited, esp. in the Jax game.

McCleon proved himself to be worthy of whatever salary he draws, as long as he is healthy.

His injuries early may have been the result of being lazy in the offseason and resting on his laurels, but I don't know that.

He did have a good year last year and in recent games.

bricks
12-30-2004, 05:23 PM
I think McCleon's recent performance shows that he is still a decent NFL CB, but that he was too injured to be on the field earlier in the year, when he was exploited, esp. in the Jax game.

McCleon proved himself to be worthy of whatever salary he draws, as long as he is healthy.

His injuries early may have been the result of being lazy in the offseason and resting on his laurels, but I don't know that.

He did have a good year last year and in recent games.

Yes your right. he did have a good year last year, and has been playing better lately. You know why? Cause the past 2 games the Chiefs have been playing more zone defense. I don't know if him being injured is a way of people using that as a scapegoat for his bad performance. I'll say this about McCleon, is he a good cover corner? No. Does he perform well in zone defenses? Yes. and so does Benny Sapp. I'm very happy with McCleon as our NB next year, or if we happen to use a little bit zone, then I'm all for playing the guy. If you ask me, is he good enough and the corner Gun could use to help improve his defense? I would say no. That being said, I don't think of McCleon as a impact player.

jettio
01-01-2005, 02:24 PM
Yes your right. he did have a good year last year, and has been playing better lately. You know why? Cause the past 2 games the Chiefs have been playing more zone defense. I don't know if him being injured is a way of people using that as a scapegoat for his bad performance. I'll say this about McCleon, is he a good cover corner? No. Does he perform well in zone defenses? Yes. and so does Benny Sapp. I'm very happy with McCleon as our NB next year, or if we happen to use a little bit zone, then I'm all for playing the guy. If you ask me, is he good enough and the corner Gun could use to help improve his defense? I would say no. That being said, I don't think of McCleon as a impact player.

About right on that.

My take on McCleon is that he came here as a motivated vet that was an above average player for his first team and then let go when his performance dropped.

He worked hard and played well last year, which can happen with a motivated vet that still has something left.

He was awful early this year, I think it was mostly due to his being injured and the team having so little confidence in the other CBs that he was still playing when he had no business being out there.

Don't know his contract situation, but if he is in the mix next year, he could be in the same situation as Roaf and Shields, players near the end of the career that seem able to give one more goood shot at keeping up the off season workouts and playing well for another season or two.