PDA

View Full Version : Gretz Gets Snooty


Donger
03-16-2005, 04:29 PM
GRETZ: You Guys Have Been Busy
Mar 16, 2005, 5:24:50 AM by Bob Gretz


Iíve had plenty to write in recent weeks and you guys have had plenty to say and write in return. So itís time to head to the mailbag, e-mail and voice-mail.

From Oscar: ďGretz, I canít believe the Chiefs let Ty Law get out of town without signing him to a contract. Is Carl nuts? How can we not see that heís the answer to all of our problems? Please explain this to me.Ē

Oscar, the going signing bonus for top-notch free agent cornerbacks is north of $10 million. Does it make sense to simply hand Law this type of money when he couldnít run across the room right now because of the surgery on his foot? You may not like Carl Petersonís method of doing business, or even his personnel decisions. But to throw big money at Law right now would be irresponsible.

Thereís a body of opinion, and some inside Arrowhead Stadium share this, that now is the perfect time for the Chiefs to sign Law. The idea is get him signed before he heals and before the draft. After that, the market for his services may increase and so would the number he wants.

Thereís only one problem with that thinking: if you were Ty Law, why would you sign on with somebody now, when there was the chance to make more money by waiting?

Like all free agents, Law supposedly wants to come to the Chiefs, or so says his agent. But the decision will be made based on one thing: money. It always comes down to the green.

Hereís several messages on the same theme; this one from homerjaygrohl@moron.com: ďGretz, I would just like to tell you that you are a complete tool. But you already know that, donít you? Grow a pair and tell Carl heís an arrogant *&#%. No one is buying this worthless propaganda you keep shoveling out on this site. It would do you some good to realize that, because youíre only making the entire Chiefs organization look moronic, immature and stubborn. Itís time to face facts: you guys SUCK at drafting. Carl, any fantasy football idiot could do a better job than you. You owe it to the community to hire someone who knows what he or she is doing.Ē

Plus this one from Gordon: ďGretz, I listen to sports talk radio all day and I have to agree with those guys: you suck. All you do is blather whatever Carl Peterson tells you to say or write. Why canít you tell it like it is?Ē

Boys, boys Ö me thinks you might be spending too much time with your radio on. Try a CD, a tape, possibly an mp3. This steady sports talk diet is eating away at the thinking portion of your brains.

I do tell it like it is, in my opinion. Whether you choose to believe they are my opinions or not, thatís for you to decide and it really doesnít matter to me. Iím quite secure in my thoughts and statements when it comes to professional football. Iíve been covering this game on a day-to-day basis for more than 25 years and I understand the mechanics and machinations of the sport and the business.

But homerjay and Gordon, let me ask you and the tin throats of sports talk radio one thing: why, if someone disagrees with so-called popular opinion Ė the agenda being pushed by the yakkers Ė are they considered a houseman, a homer, a lackey? Why has the level of discourse fallen to the point where we canít agree to disagree?

I ask a question for which I already have an answer: these guys have little or no understanding of what they are talking about. They are so insecure in their knowledge of free agency and how the salary cap works and the ramifications of every step of this NFL game, that when their position is challenged, they cannot answer with fact or examples. They can only answer with name calling. In the world of sports talk radio these days, you are considered relevant only if you make the most noise, call the most names and pass yourself off as an expert.

But Iíll let you in on a little trade secret with these guys: the ones that make the most noise, the ones that call the most names, those are the most insecure yakkers, those are the guys that know they donít know and they are scared to death that they are going to be exposed.

Enough of that, hereís one final note, this one from Christopher: ďGretz, just giving this fanís take on the off-season. I was glad to see Vonnie come and my worries came true and so Iím glad to see him go. This is a business and the Chiefs have Vermeil one more year so letís go for it. Not saying donít be smart about it. Please donít bring in Ty Law; nothing against him but he wants too much and heís not doing the team thing; if he was he would have stayed with the champs. We obviously need a good corner, some good linebackers and some good pass rushers. Iíd like to see Peterson do some work this off-season and then come up with a good draft; Carlos Rogers would be a missing link. ďGo Chiefs.Ē

Christopher thereís no question that this off-season, with free agency and then the draft, is one of the most important around Arrowhead Stadium in many years. The Chiefs roster, organization and franchise are at a crossroads here in these seasons of 2005 and 2006. What happens over the next 18 to 24 months will drive the direction of the Chiefs for many years to come.

Vonnie Holliday was obviously a free agency disappointment; after that first game when he had three sacks he was barely a factor in the Chiefs defense. Ty Law is a good addition, but only at the right equation for his health-price. Thereís no doubt the Chiefs need help on the corner; everyone including Carl Peterson understands that.

But forgotten sometimes is the improvement that comes from within. Coming up on Friday, we will take a closer look at the Chiefs returning roster and put the spotlight on a few guys that must step forward for the defense to improve.

The opinions offered in this column do not necessarily reflect those of the Kansas City Chiefs.

A former beat reporter who covered the Pittsburgh Steelers during their glory years, Gretz covered the Chiefs for the Kansas City Star for nine years before heading up KCFX-FM's sports department. He is a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame's Board of Selectors. His column appears three times a week during the season.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-16-2005, 04:35 PM
Gretz is okay, but I don't care what anyone says, the dude is a grade A kissass

htismaqe
03-16-2005, 04:41 PM
With some of those idiotic emails, it's no wonder he's snooty.

HemiEd
03-16-2005, 04:53 PM
repost
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=112380

Wallcrawler
03-16-2005, 05:15 PM
Gretz is a company man, plain and simple.


Most of his articles defend the KC Chiefs organization and all of their decisions, no matter how asinine, as if they were his dying mother on the side of the road.


Ever so often, you will find an article from him that actually has him seeming like he has grown a pair of testicles and questioning a move or two that the front office has made, but I guess those are only thrown in there for anyone who calls him a pure company man so that he can say he hasnt agreed all the time.

99% of the time though, Gretz lashes out at the fans who are annualy disgusted with some of the retard level moves the organization makes, and tries to make any fan who isnt jumping up and down with glee just to be allowed to be a chiefs fan out to be an idiot if they arent happy with the way things are going.

35 years without a superbowl appearance, and 13 years without a playoff victory are apparently not sufficient for the Chiefs fans to be upset with the team when they pinch their pennies and stand pat in the offseason.

Gretz is a P.R. guy, plain and simple, and its his job to try to handle damage control. I really dont listen to a word he says, as it is biased from the outset.

Dr. Van Halen
03-16-2005, 05:41 PM
And yet ... Gretz is the only member of the press that seems to be at Arrowhead enough to know what is going on. Keep in mind that the Jack Harry's of the world seldom visit Arrowhead more than once a week. That's during the season.

If I have to choose between what Teicher says is going on and what Gretz says is going on, I trust Gretz. He's there. (For example, two offseasons ago, Teicher said the Chiefs would sign no players at all and Gretz said that we'd sign at least three defensive starters. Gretz was right.)

Gretz is right, by the way, when he says that most talk radio guys have no idea how NFL offseasons work. Same goes for most of us here on the board. The dude a few posts up who said that he and his vast fantasy football knowledge could run the organization better are typical of the loudmouth idiots who call in to the radio shows and complain about Peterson and Hunt.

Claiming that Gretz is extremely biased, but ignoring the bias of the anti-Peterson, anti-football crowd at 810 is silly.

mcan
03-16-2005, 05:59 PM
And yet ...

...Claiming that Gretz is extremely biased, but ignoring the bias of the anti-Peterson, anti-football crowd at 810 is silly.


Great post. I refuse to believe that there is any "company man" thing going on. The difference is that the guys on the radio get more money and listeners if they raise hell. Also, I'm sure there is an element of pride toward the organization when they are your employer, and you LOVE your job... I loved my job at the guitar store, and while I know we weren't always perfect, I never hesitated to tell everybody why our guitar store was the BEST DAMNED GUITAR STORE EVER!

milkman
03-16-2005, 06:04 PM
Great post. I refuse to believe that there is any "company man" thing going on. The difference is that the guys on the radio get more money and listeners if they raise hell. Also, I'm sure there is an element of pride toward the organization when they are your employer, and you LOVE your job... I loved my job at the guitar store, and while I know we weren't always perfect, I never hesitated to tell everybody why our guitar store was the BEST DAMNED GUITAR STORE EVER!

True.
But no one could point to 35 years of never achieving your primary goal, and 13 years of never achieving even your secondary goal as proof that it wasn't.

keg in kc
03-16-2005, 06:09 PM
I've always wondered what it would be like to have an off-the-record conversation with Gretz.

mcan
03-16-2005, 06:18 PM
True.
But no one could point to 35 years of never achieving your primary goal, and 13 years of never achieving even your secondary goal as proof that it wasn't.


The primary goal is to provide entertainment to public... That's why I still go to the final game even if we're mathmatically eliminated from the playoffs. But I do see what you mean. I just want to point out that hole in your theory. If their primary goal is to win the SuperBowl, then that implies that they are FAILURES, and so are the other 31 teams that don't win. I just don't see it that way. You are only a failure if you are not fun to watch...

Granted, it's much MORE fun to watch a team go for a championship...

ChiefsFanatic
03-16-2005, 10:12 PM
One time I was in a room with both Gretz and Carl Peterson. Gretz sneezed, and Peterson's lips began to flap.

Ultra Peanut
03-16-2005, 10:14 PM
Classless and deranged.

milkman
03-16-2005, 10:23 PM
The primary goal is to provide entertainment to public... That's why I still go to the final game even if we're mathmatically eliminated from the playoffs. But I do see what you mean. I just want to point out that hole in your theory. If their primary goal is to win the SuperBowl, then that implies that they are FAILURES, and so are the other 31 teams that don't win. I just don't see it that way. You are only a failure if you are not fun to watch...

Granted, it's much MORE fun to watch a team go for a championship...

If you want to quibble, their primary goal is to make money.

|Zach|
03-16-2005, 10:25 PM
Sports radio blows...I am not quite sure why so many people around here hate themselves enough to listen to it.

mcan
03-17-2005, 01:30 AM
If you want to quibble, their primary goal is to make money.


I certainly don't want to quibble with a man holding a gun... :)

Anyway there are a lot of teams out there who have won a superbowl, and lost a lot more overall games than we have in the 15 years that I've been watching. I just think that if they are winners a good portion of the time, and are entertaining to watch, then they are not total failures...

Ari Chi3fs
03-17-2005, 04:08 AM
This is Donger's first football related post.

Manila-Chief
03-17-2005, 04:16 AM
The primary goal is to provide entertainment to public... That's why I still go to the final game even if we're mathmatically eliminated from the playoffs. But I do see what you mean. I just want to point out that hole in your theory. If their primary goal is to win the SuperBowl, then that implies that they are FAILURES, and so are the other 31 teams that don't win. I just don't see it that way. You are only a failure if you are not fun to watch...

Granted, it's much MORE fun to watch a team go for a championship...

Well, my primary goal maybe entertainment but the way I'm entertained is with the promise of a S.B. win.

How would it be if a coach or manager will say to his players ... you guys don't have to win ... just go out and play anyway you like. The fans will be entertained and that is good enough. That will not go over very good even for a L.L. coach.

This is a sport we are dealing with. The last time I checked the purpose of sports is to win. Those teams that don't win do not have their seats filled year in an year out. It is the promise of a winner that helps people spend big money for professional sports.

When I was in K.C. we went to see the new Royals a few times each year ... just for the entertainment value. But, even then it was more than just a great night out ... because Mr. K promised us a world series win. There was the promise of winning ... even in the lean years of building the team.

If the Chiefs continue in their present mode of jerking the fans around just to fill the seats I think you will see several empty seats in a year or so.

nmt1
03-17-2005, 05:30 AM
Well, my primary goal maybe entertainment but the way I'm entertained is with the promise of a S.B. win.

So all it takes is a promise? You don't need the actual win or appearance, just a promise? Well then thats easy, I promise you we'll win the Superbowl next season.

milkman
03-17-2005, 05:36 AM
I certainly don't want to quibble with a man holding a gun... :)

Anyway there are a lot of teams out there who have won a superbowl, and lost a lot more overall games than we have in the 15 years that I've been watching. I just think that if they are winners a good portion of the time, and are entertaining to watch, then they are not total failures...

The Chiefs organization is a successful one.
They have filled the seats, entertained, and made money.

But the football team has failed to win a SB, or even to advance to one in 35 years, and have failed to win a playoff game in 13 years.

They aren't total failures, but neither are they a rousing success.

And I'm starting to get a little pissed about it.

donkhater
03-17-2005, 05:38 AM
Frankly I find it funny that this 'professional' is getting all bent out of shape about what the ordinary fans thinks about his opinion. Here's what I would say to him:

1. If you're going to state your opinion on the official team page, expect to get flack for it. The negative articles about the Chiefs only look to me as though you write them to maintain a little credibility, while not truly believing it what you write.

2. If fans are so misinformed, why lash out at all? Why give any credibility to anything they say if they aren't in the know? Is it because you are feeling insecure about being a kiss-ass?

3. There hasn't been a single thought or point to come out of any of your articles that we on Chiefs Planet haven't hashed out about 100 times over. Contribute something, man.

nmt1
03-17-2005, 05:45 AM
Frankly I find it funny that this 'professional' is getting all bent out of shape about what the ordinary fans thinks about his opinion. Here's what I would say to him:

1. If you're going to state your opinion on the official team page, expect to get flack for it. The negative articles about the Chiefs only look to me as though you write them to maintain a little credibility, while not truly believing it what you write.

2. If fans are so misinformed, why lash out at all? Why give any credibility to anything they say if they aren't in the know? Is it because you are feeling insecure about being a kiss-ass?

3. There hasn't been a single thought or point to come out of any of your articles that we on Chiefs Planet haven't hashed out about 100 times over. Contribute something, man.

Gretz doesn't sound bent out of shape to me. I think he does a good job of pointing out the truth when it comes to the people who email him about the Chiefs. Yes, they are uninformed and, yes, their arguments consist of BS put forth on sports talk radio stations. When one refutes the BS the emailer resorts to name calling. Heck your post is full of name calling and hyperbole.
Maybe you shouldn't bother reading his articles if you find them so redundant.

donkhater
03-17-2005, 05:58 AM
Gretz doesn't sound bent out of shape to me. I think he does a good job of pointing out the truth when it comes to the people who email him about the Chiefs. Yes, they are uninformed and, yes, their arguments consist of BS put forth on sports talk radio stations. When one refutes the BS the emailer resorts to name calling. Heck your post is full of name calling and hyperbole.
Maybe you shouldn't bother reading his articles if you find them so redundant.
Lately I haven't. He never really says anything. This latest one was getting such a reaction from the board, I thought I'd see what he wrote.

Dr. Van Halen
03-17-2005, 07:09 AM
3. There hasn't been a single thought or point to come out of any of your articles that we on Chiefs Planet haven't hashed out about 100 times over. Contribute something, man.



You clearly have never read his work much ... even if you subscribe to the notion that Gretz is a mouthpiece for the organization, you have to concede that he has facts more often than his competitors. He breaks stories. He's credible.

Dr. Van Halen
03-17-2005, 07:17 AM
Well, my primary goal maybe entertainment but the way I'm entertained is with the promise of a S.B. win. ...


When I was in K.C. we went to see the new Royals a few times each year ... just for the entertainment value. But, even then it was more than just a great night out ... because Mr. K promised us a world series win. There was the promise of winning ... even in the lean years of building the team.

If the Chiefs continue in their present mode of jerking the fans around just to fill the seats I think you will see several empty seats in a year or so.

Whoa. I realize your talking about the Royals from the pre-90's, but holding up the Royals as a legitimate professional franchise that compares favorably to the Chiefs is a bit ridiculous.

All of the nonsense you guys post about the Chiefs not caring about winning/only caring about money and filling the seats actually applies to the Royals.

Again, to say that the Chiefs do not care about winning is INSANE. Their success financially is a by-product of their initial success in the early days of Peterson's reign. Can you name a year when the fans did not think the Chiefs had a shot at making the playoffs? I can't. Under Peterson our team has NEVER been Bengalish or Cardinal-esque.

That's why the seats are filled on Sundays. NOT TRYING?! Tell it to the Royals.

nmt1
03-17-2005, 07:22 AM
Whoa. I realize your talking about the Royals from the pre-90's, but holding up the Royals as a legitimate professional franchise that compares favorably to the Chiefs is a bit ridiculous.

All of the nonsense you guys post about the Chiefs not caring about winning/only caring about money and filling the seats actually applies to the Royals.

Again, to say that the Chiefs do not care about winning is INSANE. Their success financially is a by-product of their initial success in the early days of Peterson's reign. Can you name a year when the fans did not think the Chiefs had a shot at making the playoffs? I can't. Under Peterson our team has NEVER been Bengalish or Cardinal-esque.

That's why the seats are filled on Sundays. NOT TRYING?! Tell it to the Royals.

It's the Carl Peterson master plan! Keep the team as mediocre as possible while jerking the fans around so the seats will be full. It's positively brilliant! The way he separates us fools from our money is pure Genious.

Donger
03-17-2005, 07:27 AM
This is Donger's first football related post.

Heh. Not even close, although that is not a rare assumption.

KCTitus
03-17-2005, 07:32 AM
...Can you name a year when the fans did not think the Chiefs had a shot at making the playoffs? I can't. Under Peterson our team has NEVER been Bengalish or Cardinal-esque.

And people call me a homer...I can remember a few quite recently when it as apparent KC didnt have a shot at the playoffs. 1998--especially after the Monday Night game. 2000--Gunther's second season, 2001--DV's first season with 20M in dead cap money are the most recent that I can think of.

jarjar
03-17-2005, 07:55 AM
In the short time I've been on this board, I'm afraid I agree with Gretz. Very few of the critical posts made towards the FO really have a slam dunk argument, and most of them are little more than name calling. How can you really think our FO is just pissing on the fanbase when the team is so stocked with upper tier talent? One thing that I keep thinking of when considering the work of the KC FO is that we had 9 pro-bowlers in 2003, and that was more than any other team in the NFL. Those players are all still here. Signing and keeping pro-bowlers is one way to measure the effectiveness of the front office because pro-bowlers are expensive, and it's the penny-pinchingness of the FO that has enabled us to keep these guys. Obviously that isn't going to guarantee success, but then again it's not pissing on the fan base either. Once we go out and sign a contract with a 15m bonus all of that work and careful salary management goes out the window. I know that if signing that contract would guarantee post season success, we would do it, but history shows that making moves like that don't come close to guaranteeing anything, and the havoc it would cause in the organization in the coming years would be terrible.

Now I'm not letting them off the hook though, the bottom line is we haven't had any post season success so they aren't getting the job done, but I sure as hell don't think giving 15m signing bonus to Law or Surtain is the brilliant move half the people here think it is.

Gaz
03-17-2005, 07:59 AM
Good points, jidar.

xoxo~
Gaz
Glad to read some reasoned thought once in a while.

beavis
03-17-2005, 08:01 AM
Sports radio blows...I am not quite sure why so many people around here hate themselves enough to listen to it.
Lack of an alternative for one reason. The only other decent station in town is the Planet. I find it hard to stomach Lazlo or anyone on the Buzz for more than 3 minutes at a time.

beavis
03-17-2005, 08:02 AM
This is Donger's first football related post.
You realize this isn't a KU board, right?

Dr. Van Halen
03-17-2005, 08:02 AM
And people call me a homer...I can remember a few quite recently when it as apparent KC didnt have a shot at the playoffs. 1998--especially after the Monday Night game. 2000--Gunther's second season, 2001--DV's first season with 20M in dead cap money are the most recent that I can think of.

1998!?! The Chiefs started out 4-1 and were the darlings of the NFL. Unfortunately, it turned out that being a "darling" in any professional sport isn't necessarily good.

2001? Well, okay. Although I would add that so much progress was made (HC, OC, QB, HB, etc.), that there was nothing but hope at the season's start. Even in 1999 and 2000, we had reason to think we would do well. That's what I'm saying.

So, one season? Name the other seasons where there wasn't reason to think we had a shot at the playoffs when the season started!

beavis
03-17-2005, 08:03 AM
Good points, jidar.

xoxo~
Gaz
Glad to read some reasoned thought once in a while.

Like from Gretz?

Hi pot, this is kettle...

Gaz
03-17-2005, 08:05 AM
beavis-

I am not sure I understand your point. What bit in Gretzís article is unreasoned and illogical?
xoxo~
Gaz
Could have missed it.

Cochise
03-17-2005, 08:22 AM
In the short time I've been on this board, I'm afraid I agree with Gretz. Very few of the critical posts made towards the FO really have a slam dunk argument, and most of them are little more than name calling. How can you really think our FO is just pissing on the fanbase when the team is so stocked with upper tier talent? One thing that I keep thinking of when considering the work of the KC FO is that we had 9 pro-bowlers in 2003, and that was more than any other team in the NFL. Those players are all still here. Signing and keeping pro-bowlers is one way to measure the effectiveness of the front office because pro-bowlers are expensive, and it's the penny-pinchingness of the FO that has enabled us to keep these guys. Obviously that isn't going to guarantee success, but then again it's not pissing on the fan base either. Once we go out and sign a contract with a 15m bonus all of that work and careful salary management goes out the window. I know that if signing that contract would guarantee post season success, we would do it, but history shows that making moves like that don't come close to guaranteeing anything, and the havoc it would cause in the organization in the coming years would be terrible.

Now I'm not letting them off the hook though, the bottom line is we haven't had any post season success so they aren't getting the job done, but I sure as hell don't think giving 15m signing bonus to Law or Surtain is the brilliant move half the people here think it is.

What do you expect from a place where Keyaron Fox and Rich Scanlon are thought to be pro bowlers waiting in the wings? Where Sammie Parker is the next Jerry Rice? Where, if Vermeil would just play these players and if Carl would just quit being so cheap, our roster would look like the AFC's pro bowl roster?

beavis
03-17-2005, 08:22 AM
beavis-

I am not sure I understand your point. What bit in Gretzís article is unreasoned and illogical?
xoxo~
Gaz
Could have missed it.

Well, for starters...

But forgotten sometimes is the improvement that comes from within. Coming up on Friday, we will take a closer look at the Chiefs returning roster and put the spotlight on a few guys that must step forward for the defense to improve.
Seems I've heard this line before. Can't remember where though...

And in case you couldn't tell, that entire article was a slap at fans like us, not the morons that wrote what he is commenting on. You really think ever email he got was written in that tone?

I've got an idea. Let's have one of our more knowledgable posters and communicators craft an email to Bubba. How about htismaqe or The Bad Guy. Anyone want to take bets on how soon those emails would appear in Gretz's column?

Gaz
03-17-2005, 08:33 AM
beavis-

What is unreasonable or illogical about saying that some Chiefs players have to step up? That seems self-evident to me. Yet you quote it as an example of an unreasonable and illogical comment. Care to splain that to me?

No, I do not see the article as a slap in the face. Gretz answered issues raised by some fans. He did not extend those comments to all fans, nor did he even imply that all fans feel that way. My face is untouched by that article.

I have no reason to think those emails were fraudulent. As a matter of fact, I have read the same stuff here on the Planet for quite a while now. Anyone posting on the Planet is capable of sending an email.

The only reason for someone to be insulted is if they are one of the name-callers cited in the article. If you are a name-caller and cannot back up your comments with arguments beyond ďGretz is a moronĒ or ďGretz is a shill for the ChiefsĒ then Gretz called you out. And at least Gretz had the decency to admit that his take is opinion.

xoxo~
Gaz
Has no problem with Gretz voicing his opinion.

htismaqe
03-17-2005, 08:40 AM
I've got an idea. Let's have one of our more knowledgable posters and communicators craft an email to Bubba. How about htismaqe or The Bad Guy. Anyone want to take bets on how soon those emails would appear in Gretz's column?

I've said it before (I think it was about Rufus, or maybe Whitlock?).

ALL of the talking heads, whether they are of the pro-Carl or anti-Carl crowd, assume that the people that email them and/or call their show represent the "average" fan.

But in this Internet age, there is a "new" fan of which they're only vaguely aware.

You won't ever see them quoting a member of this bulletin board. We're not the easy pickings they're used to.

jspchief
03-17-2005, 08:41 AM
The thing about this article that irks me is that he chose a couple of the most idotic e-mails in the bag and dedicated an article to them.

Does anyone here think there weren't more intelligent e-mails he could have replied to?

The problem is, the intelligent e-mails require an intelligent response. They require you to answer tough questions instead of simply dismissing the question for it's stupidity.

We can all read the first line of the first e-mail he quoted and collectivley agree that that guy was an idiot. There are a lot of idiot Chiefs fans, and very few of them pose questions that are intelligent enough to warrant a response.

Instead of wasting an entire article on the dopes that you claim have no credibility, why not throw some meat to those that do ask smart questions?

Dr. Van Halen
03-17-2005, 08:45 AM
The thing about this article that irks me is that he chose a couple of the most idotic e-mails in the bag and dedicated an article to them.

Does anyone here think there weren't more intelligent e-mails he could have replied to?

The problem is, the intelligent e-mails require an intelligent response. They require you to answer tough questions instead of simply dismissing the question for it's stupidity.

We can all read the first line of the first e-mail he quoted and collectivley agree that that guy was an idiot. There are a lot of idiot Chiefs fans, and very few of them pose questions that are intelligent enough to warrant a response.

Instead of wasting an entire article on the dopes that you claim have no credibility, why not throw some meat to those that do ask smart questions?

Now that is a good point. One can only assume that he is tired of hearing the rabble here and on the radio bad-mouthing him constantly with weak arguments. You eventually have to do something about that, or the public accepts it as fact.

Ebolapox
03-17-2005, 03:26 PM
Sports radio blows...I am not quite sure why so many people around here hate themselves enough to listen to it.

several reasons...

1) my car's an old car (only 40k certified miles on it, but old)... I don't wanna spend teh cash on a cd player when I can easily put it into savings so that when I DO get a better car, I can really go all out

2) so thus, when in my car, I have standard 'radio'... aka, fox sports radio and espn radio... a few of the guys who have shows are total tools... that said, several of them are worth listening to for the simple fact that, since I'm not in front of a 'puter for the most part of the day, I can't check the planet except once a day for chiefs news... or SPORTS NEWS of ANY type... I'm a sports junkie... with no planet, dan patrick and the few worth listening to are all I got whilst in my car (between work/school, I basically f*cking LIVE in my car--)

-EB-...doesn't hate himself, hates having no sports news

Donger
03-17-2005, 03:29 PM
41 posts and not one Ferris Bueller quote?

sigh