PDA

View Full Version : CP in the fold, Contract re-upped


Booyaa58
03-17-2005, 05:37 AM
I guess we have to live with this kat for a while longer.....He'd better produce some SB's :mad:


PETERSON AGREES TO FOUR-YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH CHIEFS
Mar 17, 2005, 5:06:41 AM



Kansas City Chiefs Founder Lamar Hunt and Vice Chairman Clark Hunt announced on Thursday that President Carl Peterson has agreed to a four-year contract extension with the team. Peterson’s current contract was set to expire following the 2005 season. With this four-year contract extension, the team will retain Peterson’s services through the 2009 season.



Lamar Hunt, whose 45 years of association with the team qualifies him as a senior observer of Chiefs football said: “Carl was instrumental in leading the Chiefs back to the top echelon of the NFL after joining the organization in December of 1988. This new contract will carry through his 21st season with the organization. Such stability is unusual in the front office of an NFL team and is a big plus for the football fans of Mid-America. We look forward to the Chiefs continuing to be a competitive team within the NFL.”

Peterson enters his 17th season as Kansas City’s top executive in 2005 after originally joining the Chiefs in December of ‘88. During Peterson’s tenure, Kansas City has employed just three different head coaches and has finished first or second in the AFC West 11 times. Over that 16-year span, the Chiefs made eight playoff appearances, won four AFC West titles and reached the only AFC Championship Game in team history. In the 17 seasons prior to Peterson’s arrival, the Chiefs made just one playoff appearance and enjoyed just four winning seasons, while working under the direction of six different head coaches.

During Peterson’s 24 seasons as a pro football executive, squads whose personnel operations he has overseen have produced 18 winning records and have made the playoffs 15 times, a span that dates back to ‘77 when Peterson served as Director of Player Personnel for the Philadelphia Eagles. In addition to his NFL tours of duty in Kansas City and Philadelphia, Peterson also served as the President and General Manager of the USFL’s Stars. During that league’s three-season run from ‘83-85, the Stars compiled a league-best 48-13-1 overall record, won the final two USFL titles after reaching the league’s first championship game.

Under Peterson’s leadership, the Chiefs and their fans have created one of the league’s most impressive homefield advantages. Kansas City has sold out 117 consecutive contests at Arrowhead — including five postseason games — dating back to the club’s ‘91 regular season opener. Since the ‘95 season, Denver is the only AFC club that has a better home record than the 58-22 (.725) ledger produced by Kansas City at Arrowhead. The Chiefs have gone 13-3 three times under Peterson’s tenure (’95, ‘97 and 2003), boasting 8-0 regular season marks at Arrowhead each of those years.

The team’s national popularity has also grown tremendously over the past 16 years. Kansas City has been among the NFL leaders in merchandise sales, national-television appearances (71 times, including 25 on ABC’s Monday Night Football, the past 12 years) and international exposure (four American Bowl appearances since ‘90). Moreover, in 2004, the team registered season ticket holders from an amazing 47 different states.

“The Chiefs organization is fortunate to be able to retain the services of a proven leader like Carl for an additional four years,” Clark Hunt stated. “Throughout his tenure with the team, Carl has set a high standard in the management of both the business and football sides of the organization. With Carl’s leadership, we look forward to maintaining the Chiefs reputation as one of the best-run franchises in the NFL and providing our loyal fans with many exciting Sunday afternoons.”

“It has been my distinct honor and privilege to work for the Hunt family these past years,” Peterson noted in receiving the extension. “I sincerely appreciate their confidence and loyalty and will continue to work diligently to give them and the fans of Kansas City my best efforts. It is my continued goal to win a world championship for the Hunt family and for the greatest fans in pro football.”

Peterson serves on the National Boards for the Maxwell Football Club and Pop Warner Little Scholars Organization. He serves as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees for Pop Warner and is a member of the International World President’s Organization. He also serves on the Board of The Third and Long Foundation, which was founded by the late Derrick Thomas. In addition, Peterson serves on the following NFL Committees: NFL Management Council/C.E.C. Senior Executive Group, College and Pro Relations, NFL Europe League Working Executives and the NFL Youth Football Funding Board.

Peterson was inducted into the Missouri Sports Hall of Fame in 2005 with a class that included the likes of longtime Chiefs DE Art Still and former two-sport All-Star Bo Jackson. Spearheaded by the efforts of Peterson and his wife, Lori, the Chiefs organization (players, coaches and front office staff) has raised a net of over $12 million for local charities since ‘98.

|Zach|
03-17-2005, 05:53 AM
Holy shit.

Kerberos
03-17-2005, 06:00 AM
DAMMIT LAMAR ... :banghead:
:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Amnorix
03-17-2005, 06:39 AM
“Carl was instrumental in leading the Chiefs back to the top echelon of the NFL after joining the organization in December of 1988.

So, not to be a jerk or anything, but he's been around for 17 years and has zero playoff victories under his watch, is that right? And Carl considers that "top echelon"?? :spock:

philfree
03-17-2005, 06:40 AM
I was thining just last night that with all the free agent activity and the possible trade for Surtain that Carl was about to get a new contract. ROFL Didn't think it'd be this mourning though. This means possibly one more year of DV and probably the hire of Saunders as HC when DV does hit the road.


PhilFree :arrow:

Deberg_1990
03-17-2005, 06:41 AM
So, not to be a jerk or anything, but he's been around for 17 years and has zero playoff victories under his watch, is that right? And Carl considers that "top echelon"?? :spock:


No, hes got a few from the early 1990's....they just havent WON a playoff game since the Houston/Buddy Ryan game in January of 1994.

milkman
03-17-2005, 06:43 AM
I was thining just last night that with all the free agent activity and the possible trade for Surtain that Carl was about to get a new contract. ROFL Didn't think it'd be this mourning though. This means possibly one more year of DV and probably the hire of Saunders as HC when DV does hit the road.


PhilFree :arrow:

Freudian(sp) slip?

milkman
03-17-2005, 06:45 AM
No, hes got a few from the early 1990's....they just havent WON a playoff game since the Houston/Buddy Ryan game in January of 1994.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe the number of playoff wins is 3 under Carl.

philfree
03-17-2005, 06:45 AM
Freudian(sp) slip?


Naw just a bad speller. I was figuring you'd be up on the chair throwing a rope over a beam by now.



PhilFree :arrow:

Deberg_1990
03-17-2005, 06:51 AM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe the number of playoff wins is 3 under Carl.


Hmm..its either 3 or 4???

lets see....

1990= no
1991= yes
1992=no??? cant remember, just remember losing to the Chargers
1993= we had 2

either way..its not very good and hes basically been "coasting" for 10 years.....

Kerberos
03-17-2005, 06:52 AM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe the number of playoff wins is 3 under Carl.



nope ... pretty sure it's 1 :hmmm:



.

nmt1
03-17-2005, 06:54 AM
nope ... pretty sure it's 1 :hmmm:



.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or what but you do realize that we went to the AFC championship game in 1993, meaning that we had to win at least two playoff games in that season alone, don't you?

milkman
03-17-2005, 06:54 AM
Naw just a bad speller. I was figuring you'd be up on the chair throwing a rope over a beam by now.



PhilFree :arrow:

:)
Not me.

But a hammer and nails, and a trip to Carl's office would be just fine.

Rausch
03-17-2005, 06:55 AM
ROFL

philfree
03-17-2005, 07:01 AM
Apparently is good for the radio jocks too. I just tried to connect to 810 and couldn't so they must be maxed out. So who will last longer in KC? Carl or Whitlock?


PhilFree :arrow:

NaptownChief
03-17-2005, 07:02 AM
Trying to figure out if I just throw in the towel now or continue the futile struggle of pretending something good can happen under his "leadership"....

Deberg_1990
03-17-2005, 07:04 AM
So who will last longer in KC? Carl or Whitlock?




Carl has become like a roach you cant kill. Sounds like he will be here till the end times.......DAMNIT LAMAR!!!

the Talking Can
03-17-2005, 07:15 AM
so, if you can't claim a playoff win in 12 years and your personell department is a roster of retards and your drafting abilities are on par with the "throwing darts blindfolded" method you get your 5th contract extension, and a Laurel and Hardy handshake....

Amnorix
03-17-2005, 07:16 AM
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or what but you do realize that we went to the AFC championship game in 1993, meaning that we had to win at least two playoff games in that season alone, don't you?

I don't know what the playoff format was back in '93 (it was unfamiliar territory to Patriots fans back then), but these days a bye week and 1 victory gets you to the AFC Championship Game.

HemiEd
03-17-2005, 07:18 AM
So, not to be a jerk or anything, but he's been around for 17 years and has zero playoff victories under his watch, is that right? And Carl considers that "top echelon"?? :spock:


They have won playoff games under his watch, in fact they went to the AFC Championship game in 93.
For 20 years prior to that this team was similar to the Bengals of today
I could walk up to Arrowhead before almost anygame but the Raiders and buy a great seat.

Kerberos
03-17-2005, 07:20 AM
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or what but you do realize that we went to the AFC championship game in 1993, meaning that we had to win at least two playoff games in that season alone, don't you?

I don't remember being in a championship game in 93.

I know Joe Montana won a playoff game for us in 94 that is the only one I remember .. maybe I was too drunk at the game in 93 to remember??

:)



.

HemiEd
03-17-2005, 07:24 AM
I don't remember being in a championship game in 93.

I know Joe Montana won a playoff game for us in 94 that is the only one I remember .. maybe I was too drunk at the game in 93 to remember??

:)



.
http://profootballreference.com/teams/kan1993.htm

siberian khatru
03-17-2005, 07:26 AM
I hope this extension for Carl's "services" doesn't mean he'll be GM for the next five years. Maybe if we have another disappointing season in 05, Carl will vacate the GM/Pres position regarding personnel and just become Lamar's personal valet or business manager.

I was really hoping they'd wait until 05 plays out before doing this. Given our abysmal postseason record (or lack thereof) in the last 10 years, it sure seemed prudent to wait and see how this important crossroads season unfolded before rewarding Carl.

Count Alex's Wins
03-17-2005, 07:26 AM
I don't remember being in a championship game in 93.

I know Joe Montana won a playoff game for us in 94 that is the only one I remember .. maybe I was too drunk at the game in 93 to remember??

:)



.

Some Chiefs fan you are. We got creamed by the Bills. Montana got a lightning bolt jammed through his head by Cornelius Bennett and Bruce Smith.

nmt1
03-17-2005, 07:34 AM
I don't know what the playoff format was back in '93 (it was unfamiliar territory to Patriots fans back then), but these days a bye week and 1 victory gets you to the AFC Championship Game.

They beat the Steelers and Oilers in the playoffs that year.

Count Alex's Wins
03-17-2005, 07:36 AM
I don't know what the playoff format was back in '93 (it was unfamiliar territory to Patriots fans back then), but these days a bye week and 1 victory gets you to the AFC Championship Game.

Right. The Chiefs didn't have a bye.

philfree
03-17-2005, 07:48 AM
O.K. Carl it's time to reward the faithful with a nice pro bowl CB. I could see Carl getting Surtain on the heels of his new contract. I does like to grand stand a little. Come on Carl take a bow!


PhilFree :arrow:

InChiefsHell
03-17-2005, 07:52 AM
Yup, I remember cuz one of the radio DJ's here in Omaha is a Pittsburg fan...went to the game, had nothing good to say about the Chiefs or their fans. I actually can't stand listening to the prick anymore...Made the loss to Buffalo that much more painful...

ROYC75
03-17-2005, 08:01 AM
Oh boy,this is goinna leave a mark !

Kerberos
03-17-2005, 08:01 AM
http://profootballreference.com/teams/kan1993.htm

I stand corrected

KCinNY
03-17-2005, 08:04 AM
I saw this thread and was hoping that it was somebody's sick joke.


:(
-sigh-

BigRedChief
03-17-2005, 08:05 AM
NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :banghead:

The Horror! The Horror!

I'm going to go :bang:myself now. Good bye cruel world.

dirk digler
03-17-2005, 08:05 AM
Shit. Lamar is way to loyal just like he was with Jack Steadman.

Soupnazi
03-17-2005, 08:10 AM
For god's sake already. As I've said before, nothing will change until Lamar is gone.

dirk digler
03-17-2005, 08:12 AM
For god's sake already. As I've said before, nothing will change until Lamar is gone.

Sadly to say I am really starting to believe this.

kc rush
03-17-2005, 08:15 AM
Lamar Hunt, whose 45 years of association with the team qualifies him as a senior observer of Chiefs football said: “Carl was instrumental in leading the Chiefs back to the top echelon of the NFL after joining the organization in December of 1988. This new contract will carry through his 21st season with the organization. Such stability is unusual in the front office of an NFL team and is a big plus for the football fans of Mid-America. We look forward to the Chiefs continuing to be a competitive team within the NFL.”



Such mediocrity is unusual in the front office of an NFL team.

I'm glad we can look forward to being "competitive". How about being a champion instead.

I hope we can make a good run this year because it is getting painful to watch.

Bwana
03-17-2005, 08:19 AM
Some place Packfan Ken is sitting in a corner kicking his own azz and getting ready to jump. :)

BigRedChief
03-17-2005, 08:22 AM
For god's sake already. As I've said before, nothing will change until Lamar is gone.

It's getting close. Clark is making it into the press releases now. He represents Chiefs ownership at NFL mettings over 90% of the time(heard that in an interview).

King Carl is making money hand over fist for the Hunt family. If thats your goal sign him to a 5 year contract extension. If your goal is to win the Super Bowl and you haven't won a playoff game in 12 years welll a contract extension is probably not in your thought process.

At least now we know what the Hunt families primary goal is. And that just plain and simple is fill the stadium and make money and then pursue the Super Bowl. And that isn't the same goal as most people here, to win the Super Bowl.

Dr. Facebook Fever
03-17-2005, 08:23 AM
Well that settles it. I'm gonna get a job with the Chiefs. Job performance is obviously not important to them so I can slack off all day every day and have all the job security I want. Sweet.

Chief Henry
03-17-2005, 08:29 AM
Glad to see Carl's been working on his own stuff instead of getting a dam CB.

Mr.Hunt cares about $$$ not a championship.
mediocrity on the football field is being rewarded.

Chiefnj
03-17-2005, 08:33 AM
Bend over and grab your ankles for four more years.

Dr. Facebook Fever
03-17-2005, 08:37 AM
Bend over and grab your ankles for four more years.
I hope they will at least provide us with a more viscous anal lube this time around. I have some chaffing from the first 15 years.

HemiEd
03-17-2005, 08:39 AM
I stand corrected

Kind of a neat site. That is a year that Marty ball really cost us. If you will look at the loss at home to the Bears. We were on their 1 leading by 2 or three(I can not remember), fourth down, less than two minutes. What does he do? Well a field goal of course! We are still up by less than a touchdown. What do the Bears do, score a winning touchdown!
If you will notice, we beat Buffalo at Arrowhead that year. That loss made us go to Buffalo for the Championship game and the rest is history. :banghead:

Dr. Van Halen
03-17-2005, 08:40 AM
Mr.Hunt cares about $$$ not a championship.
mediocrity on the football field is being rewarded.

As one of the big Chiefs apologist, even I am surprised by this. The only thing I can think of is that they have had several FA's complaining that there is no sense of security coming to a team that is about to lose their HC and GM next year. Extending CP's contract gives the appearance of stability for incoming FA's -- some new wacko isn't going to come in and hire some turdball coach who will change all of the schemes after one year. ??

Again, saying that Mr. Hunt just cares about money is asinine. The $$$ generated by the fan support has been earned -- we have been competitive every year and carried the promise of potential success at the start of every season.

CP and Mr. Hunt get every bit as angry about failure as you do. Probably moreso. They just don't pick up a microphone and start swearing. Instead, CP gets defensive and Mr. Hunt gets aloof. Not great PR, but typically professional.

KCFalcon59
03-17-2005, 08:43 AM
I don't remember being in a championship game in 93.

I know Joe Montana won a playoff game for us in 94 that is the only one I remember .. maybe I was too drunk at the game in 93 to remember??

:)



.

Yeah you were drunk. I remember it well. Ya big lush.
:D :D

Coach
03-17-2005, 08:43 AM
F**k! Well, time to start rioting.

htismaqe
03-17-2005, 08:46 AM
Trying to figure out if I just throw in the towel now or continue the futile struggle of pretending something good can happen under his "leadership"....

That's pretty much where I'm at. This is 1998 and the hiring of Gunther all over again...

Chiefnj
03-17-2005, 08:50 AM
That's pretty much where I'm at. This is 1998 and the hiring of Gunther all over again...

I'm thinking that a WR in the first round will be the final nail in my coffin.

Gaz
03-17-2005, 08:52 AM
Cool. I can move closer to the front of the bandwagon now that folks are leaping off.

xoxo~
Gaz
Tired of sitting next to the bathroom.

the Talking Can
03-17-2005, 08:56 AM
Cool. I can move closer to the front of the bandwagon now that folks are leaping off.

xoxo~
Gaz
Tired of sitting next to the bathroom.


yes, people baffled at the rehiring of a GM who led us to 12 years of failure are "leaping off the bandwagon".....next you'll tell us there's no such thing as a shut-down corn...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

jspchief
03-17-2005, 08:57 AM
Too bad this came so soon.

I was thinking if we don't manage to get a CB in FA, that could be enough to send the fans into enough of an outrage that they'd have no choice but to can Peterson. If we don't get the players and produce, CP will be around just long enough to see the team and it's fans go into a nosedive, and get out just before it crashes.

Gaz
03-17-2005, 09:01 AM
yes, people baffled at the rehiring of a GM who led us to 12 years of failure are "leaping off the bandwagon".....next you'll tell us there's no such thing as a shut-down corn...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I do not care if you leap off or just stroll away.

xoxo~
Gaz
Moving up to first class seating.

Coach
03-17-2005, 09:05 AM
Gaz, might I ask why you are still riding on this Carl Peterson bandwagon?

Coach
Wonders how the seating in first class?

beavis
03-17-2005, 09:06 AM
yes, people baffled at the rehiring of a GM who led us to 12 years of failure are "leaping off the bandwagon".....next you'll tell us there's no such thing as a shut-down corn...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Of all the people I thought I'd never take sides with...

beavis
03-17-2005, 09:06 AM
Amnorix, are they still taking applications to become a Patriot fan?

I'm about sick of this bs.

jspchief
03-17-2005, 09:12 AM
Cool. I can move closer to the front of the bandwagon now that folks are leaping off.

xoxo~
Gaz
Tired of sitting next to the bathroom.


Oh, what a noble fan. :rolleyes: Blindly cheering for his team, although the rah-rahs are muffled because his head is buried in the sand. It's great that you're content with mediocrity, I just don't understand why you feel the need to flame those who aren't.

This won't make me stop cheering for my football team. But it does reinforce that Hunt is nothing more than a mediocre owner. I can be pissed at the organization, and still love the guys that step on the field every Sunday.

Gaz
03-17-2005, 09:17 AM
Gaz, might I ask why you are still riding on this Carl Peterson bandwagon?

Coach
Wonders how the seating in first class?

I am not on the Peterson bandwagon; I am on the Chiefs bandwagon.

Sadly, it has become common practice on the BB to paint anyone insufficiently venomous towards Peterson as an idiot or fool. I simply do not have a high level of anti-Peterson bile.

I would have been content for Peterson to leave when Vermeil does, but I am neither a Peterson supporter nor a hater. I am not going to get exercised over Peterson signing an extension. Like most executives, his record is mixed. If I had another, more qualified candidate to offer up, things might be different.

Unlike a number of people on the Planet, I am not privy to Peterson’s innermost thoughts, so I am not qualified to speak to his desire to win or his view of the Chiefs fan base. That bit of spite directed at him and the entire staff sure sounds bogus to me.

As far as the Draft is concerned, it seems to me that Peterson generally gets the players the Head Coaches want [Larry Johnson being the exception that puts the rule in sharp contrast]. The only times the Chiefs tasted Cap Hell was during Marty’s desperate last hours, when he brought in a bunch of thugs in a misguided attempt to overcome his own conservative nature. Peterson has managed the team decently.

He has made some bad decisions, but most of them are clear only in hindsight. For example, I thought Gunther as Head Coach was a good idea. I thought he would bring the same “kill ‘em all and let God sort it out” attitude his D displayed to the team as a whole. As it turned out, Gunther was a bad decision. But it is one I do not fault Peterson for making at the time.

I am ambivalent on Peterson. I neither hate him nor love him. He is here and will be here for another four years. I can live with that.

Apparently, some people cannot.

xoxo~
Gaz
Resists being put in neat, little bandwagon boxes.

Sure-Oz
03-17-2005, 09:19 AM
wow, this is suprising.

HemiEd
03-17-2005, 09:24 AM
I am not on the Peterson bandwagon; I am on the Chiefs bandwagon.

Sadly, it has become common practice on the BB to paint anyone insufficiently venomous towards Peterson as an idiot or fool. I simply do not have a high level of anti-Peterson bile.

I would have been content for Peterson to leave when Vermeil does, but I am neither a Peterson supporter nor a hater. I am not going to get exercised over Peterson signing an extension. Like most executives, his record is mixed. If I had another, more qualified candidate to offer up, things might be different.

Unlike a number of people on the Planet, I am not privy to Peterson’s innermost thoughts, so I am not qualified to speak to his desire to win or his view of the Chiefs fan base. That bit of spite directed at him and the entire staff sure sounds bogus to me.

As far as the Draft is concerned, it seems to me that Peterson generally gets the players the Head Coaches want [Larry Johnson being the exception that puts the rule in sharp contrast]. The only times the Chiefs tasted Cap Hell was during Marty’s desperate last hours, when he brought in a bunch of thugs in a misguided attempt to overcome his own conservative nature. Peterson has managed the team decently.

He has made some bad decisions, but most of them are clear only in hindsight. For example, I thought Gunther as Head Coach was a good idea. I thought he would bring the same “kill ‘em all and let God sort it out” attitude his D displayed to the team as a whole. As it turned out, Gunther was a bad decision. But it is one I do not fault Peterson for making at the time.

I am ambivalent on Peterson. I neither hate him nor love him. He is here and will be here for another four years. I can live with that.

Apparently, some people cannot.

xoxo~
Gaz
Resists being put in neat, little bandwagon boxes.



Very good post, I agree!

CosmicPal
03-17-2005, 09:26 AM
I am not on the Peterson bandwagon; I am on the Chiefs bandwagon.

Sadly, it has become common practice on the BB to paint anyone insufficiently venomous towards Peterson as an idiot or fool. I simply do not have a high level of anti-Peterson bile.

I would have been content for Peterson to leave when Vermeil does, but I am neither a Peterson supporter nor a hater. I am not going to get exercised over Peterson signing an extension. Like most executives, his record is mixed. If I had another, more qualified candidate to offer up, things might be different.

Unlike a number of people on the Planet, I am not privy to Peterson’s innermost thoughts, so I am not qualified to speak to his desire to win or his view of the Chiefs fan base. That bit of spite directed at him and the entire staff sure sounds bogus to me.

As far as the Draft is concerned, it seems to me that Peterson generally gets the players the Head Coaches want [Larry Johnson being the exception that puts the rule in sharp contrast]. The only times the Chiefs tasted Cap Hell was during Marty’s desperate last hours, when he brought in a bunch of thugs in a misguided attempt to overcome his own conservative nature. Peterson has managed the team decently.

He has made some bad decisions, but most of them are clear only in hindsight. For example, I thought Gunther as Head Coach was a good idea. I thought he would bring the same “kill ‘em all and let God sort it out” attitude his D displayed to the team as a whole. As it turned out, Gunther was a bad decision. But it is one I do not fault Peterson for making at the time.

I am ambivalent on Peterson. I neither hate him nor love him. He is here and will be here for another four years. I can live with that.

Apparently, some people cannot.

xoxo~
Gaz
Resists being put in neat, little bandwagon boxes.


Beautiful! :thumb:

I couldn't have said it better myself. Although, I don't agree making Gunther a head coach was necessarily a bad decision, it was just the wrong decision. Some coaches are just better at being subordinate coaches, and some are evidently better at being the head coach. But, you'll never know, if you don't give them the chance.

Brock
03-17-2005, 09:29 AM
Told ya so.

milkman
03-17-2005, 09:30 AM
I am not on the Peterson bandwagon; I am on the Chiefs bandwagon.

Sadly, it has become common practice on the BB to paint anyone insufficiently venomous towards Peterson as an idiot or fool. I simply do not have a high level of anti-Peterson bile.

I would have been content for Peterson to leave when Vermeil does, but I am neither a Peterson supporter nor a hater. I am not going to get exercised over Peterson signing an extension. Like most executives, his record is mixed. If I had another, more qualified candidate to offer up, things might be different.

Unlike a number of people on the Planet, I am not privy to Peterson’s innermost thoughts, so I am not qualified to speak to his desire to win or his view of the Chiefs fan base. That bit of spite directed at him and the entire staff sure sounds bogus to me.

As far as the Draft is concerned, it seems to me that Peterson generally gets the players the Head Coaches want [Larry Johnson being the exception that puts the rule in sharp contrast]. The only times the Chiefs tasted Cap Hell was during Marty’s desperate last hours, when he brought in a bunch of thugs in a misguided attempt to overcome his own conservative nature. Peterson has managed the team decently.

He has made some bad decisions, but most of them are clear only in hindsight. For example, I thought Gunther as Head Coach was a good idea. I thought he would bring the same “kill ‘em all and let God sort it out” attitude his D displayed to the team as a whole. As it turned out, Gunther was a bad decision. But it is one I do not fault Peterson for making at the time.

I am ambivalent on Peterson. I neither hate him nor love him. He is here and will be here for another four years. I can live with that.

Apparently, some people cannot.

xoxo~
Gaz
Resists being put in neat, little bandwagon boxes.


What you're saying, in a nutshell, is that from you're perspective, it appears that Carl is making the effort, but he hasn't quite produced the results that we would hope for.

Is that right?
If so, I would agree wholeheartedly with that.

The problem is, he's the Eric Hicks of personnel men.
Great effort, but lack of production.

And just like Eric Hicks, he needs to be replaced.
And also, just like Eric Hicks, the man responsible for replacing him is just to loyal.

Dr. Van Halen
03-17-2005, 09:32 AM
yes, people baffled at the rehiring of a GM who led us to 12 years of failure are "leaping off the bandwagon".....next you'll tell us there's no such thing as a shut-down corn...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

So we've gone from mediocrity to failure? Having the potential every season to make the playoffs is failure from the front office?

You must be one of those bitter sportsfans who burns his teams' apparel every few years. That's sad.

Brock
03-17-2005, 09:35 AM
So we've gone from mediocrity to failure? Having the potential every season to make the playoffs is failure from the front office?

The Arizona Cardinals have the potential to make the playoffs every year too. Potential doesn't mean shit.

BigRedChief
03-17-2005, 09:37 AM
I would have been content for Peterson to leave when Vermeil does, but I am neither a Peterson supporter nor a hater. I am not going to get exercised over Peterson signing an extension. Like most executives, his record is mixed. If I had another, more qualified candidate to offer up, things might be different.

What about Scott Pioli?

Coach
03-17-2005, 09:38 AM
I am not on the Peterson bandwagon; I am on the Chiefs bandwagon.

Sadly, it has become common practice on the BB to paint anyone insufficiently venomous towards Peterson as an idiot or fool. I simply do not have a high level of anti-Peterson bile.

I would have been content for Peterson to leave when Vermeil does, but I am neither a Peterson supporter nor a hater. I am not going to get exercised over Peterson signing an extension. Like most executives, his record is mixed. If I had another, more qualified candidate to offer up, things might be different.

Unlike a number of people on the Planet, I am not privy to Peterson’s innermost thoughts, so I am not qualified to speak to his desire to win or his view of the Chiefs fan base. That bit of spite directed at him and the entire staff sure sounds bogus to me.

As far as the Draft is concerned, it seems to me that Peterson generally gets the players the Head Coaches want [Larry Johnson being the exception that puts the rule in sharp contrast]. The only times the Chiefs tasted Cap Hell was during Marty’s desperate last hours, when he brought in a bunch of thugs in a misguided attempt to overcome his own conservative nature. Peterson has managed the team decently.

He has made some bad decisions, but most of them are clear only in hindsight. For example, I thought Gunther as Head Coach was a good idea. I thought he would bring the same “kill ‘em all and let God sort it out” attitude his D displayed to the team as a whole. As it turned out, Gunther was a bad decision. But it is one I do not fault Peterson for making at the time.

I am ambivalent on Peterson. I neither hate him nor love him. He is here and will be here for another four years. I can live with that.

Apparently, some people cannot.

xoxo~
Gaz
Resists being put in neat, little bandwagon boxes.


Nicely said. That I can deal with.

Dr. Van Halen
03-17-2005, 09:40 AM
The Arizona Cardinals have the potential to make the playoffs every year too. Potential doesn't mean shit.

A realistic potential? Do you follow the NFL? The Chiefs have had a legitimate shot every year (possibly with the exception of 01). The Cardinals? Not so good.

Oh, and, the obligatory: Dude, stop being such a Cardinals homer! Save it for the Cardinals website! You have your head so far up the Cardinals' arse! Jeez!

dtebbe
03-17-2005, 09:41 AM
An old Janet Jackson song comes to mind right now....


DT

Brock
03-17-2005, 09:45 AM
A realistic potential? Do you follow the NFL? The Chiefs have had a legitimate shot every year (possibly with the exception of 01). The Cardinals? Not so good.

Yeah, I follow the NFL well enough to know that a last place defense doesn't get anybody to the Super Bowl. The last few years have been the Marty era in reverse, i.e. glaring deficiencies on one side of the ball or the other. Realistic potential, yeah right.

The fact is, if Peterson's business goal is to get the Chiefs to the Super Bowl, he has failed. What about that don't you understand?

Wile_E_Coyote
03-17-2005, 09:45 AM
What you're saying, in a nutshell, is that from you're perspective, it appears that Carl is making the effort, but he hasn't quite produced the results that we would hope for.

Is that right?
If so, I would agree wholeheartedly with that.

The problem is, he's the Eric Hicks of personnel men.
Great effort, but lack of production.

And just like Eric Hicks, he needs to be replaced.
And also, just like Eric Hicks, the man responsible for replacing him is just to loyal.

watching Hicks chasing a QB is like watching the mummy in and old black & white horror flick...sigh

htismaqe
03-17-2005, 09:46 AM
A realistic potential? Do you follow the NFL? The Chiefs have had a legitimate shot every year (possibly with the exception of 01). The Cardinals? Not so good.

Oh, and, the obligatory: Dude, stop being such a Cardinals homer! Save it for the Cardinals website! You have your head so far up the Cardinals' arse! Jeez!

Legitimate?

Damn, I need to start playing Powerball. I have a "legitimate" chance to win...

Bob Dole
03-17-2005, 09:47 AM
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050309/capt.sge.ric19.090305163028.photo00.photo.default-248x384.jpg

Gaz
03-17-2005, 09:50 AM
What you're saying, in a nutshell, is that from you're perspective, it appears that Carl is making the effort, but he hasn't quite produced the results that we would hope for.

Is that right?...

That is it.

Peterson has had some successes and some failures. The team has fallen short of the ultimate goal under his tenure. For that reason, I would have been okay with him leaving. He is the GM and the buck stops on his desk. That is a legitimate knock on Peterson.

I disregard the silly claptrap that “Carl does not care about winning.” None of us knows what he cares about. That is childish stuff.

Ditto the complaints about parking, season tickets and beer. That has nothing to do with winning a Super Bowl. Since that is the goal, these are peripheral factors with no value in assessing Peterson’s performance.

I also disregard the arfing about draft picks. Based on articles about the war room on draft day, it is clear that Head Coaches get the players they want. The only exception I can recall is Larry Johnson. Picking Johnson over Vermeil’s wishes was an aberration that garnered a lot of attention. It was unusual.

The complaints about FA is likewise misguided, IMO. Folks on the Planet seem to think that all Peterson has to do is throw out a ton of money and he can round up any FA he wants. That is false. First of all, the guy has to want to play here. Second, Peterson has to keep the cap in mind. He has cap experts to assist in this process. It would serve us well to note that the only time the Chiefs were in Cap Hell was when Peterson did go nuts in FA and brought in some world-class underachievers for Marty.

Once again, I am not a Peterson fan, nor am I a Peterson hater. He has done some good [Marty & Vermeil] and some bad [Gunther, with my 20/20 hindsight]. His record is mixed. That is why I would have been okay to lose him, but am not broken-hearted that he is staying.

xoxo~
Gaz
Just not all that fired up about Peterson.

Tuckdaddy
03-17-2005, 09:50 AM
Is Lamar crazy? Nobody else would reup a person that has not won the SB by now.

jarjar
03-17-2005, 09:52 AM
I am not on the Peterson bandwagon; I am on the Chiefs bandwagon.

Sadly, it has become common practice on the BB to paint anyone insufficiently venomous towards Peterson as an idiot or fool. I simply do not have a high level of anti-Peterson bile.

I would have been content for Peterson to leave when Vermeil does, but I am neither a Peterson supporter nor a hater. I am not going to get exercised over Peterson signing an extension. Like most executives, his record is mixed. If I had another, more qualified candidate to offer up, things might be different.

Unlike a number of people on the Planet, I am not privy to Peterson’s innermost thoughts, so I am not qualified to speak to his desire to win or his view of the Chiefs fan base. That bit of spite directed at him and the entire staff sure sounds bogus to me.

As far as the Draft is concerned, it seems to me that Peterson generally gets the players the Head Coaches want [Larry Johnson being the exception that puts the rule in sharp contrast]. The only times the Chiefs tasted Cap Hell was during Marty’s desperate last hours, when he brought in a bunch of thugs in a misguided attempt to overcome his own conservative nature. Peterson has managed the team decently.

He has made some bad decisions, but most of them are clear only in hindsight. For example, I thought Gunther as Head Coach was a good idea. I thought he would bring the same “kill ‘em all and let God sort it out” attitude his D displayed to the team as a whole. As it turned out, Gunther was a bad decision. But it is one I do not fault Peterson for making at the time.

I am ambivalent on Peterson. I neither hate him nor love him. He is here and will be here for another four years. I can live with that.

Apparently, some people cannot.

xoxo~
Gaz
Resists being put in neat, little bandwagon boxes.




Excellent. Saved me having to try to say that..

Gaz
03-17-2005, 09:53 AM
...Although, I don't agree making Gunther a head coach was necessarily a bad decision, it was just the wrong decision...

That is a much better way of putting it.

At the time, I liked the idea. Looking back, it did not work out. Gunther did not bring the aggressive attitude to the entire team. He kept the worst Assistant Coaching staff in recent memory together and presided over the disintegration of my team.

But his press conferences were interesting from a “WTF” standpoint. You gotta give him that.

xoxo~
Gaz
Enjoys his ability to make perfect decisions in hindsight.

jspchief
03-17-2005, 09:53 AM
A realistic potential? Do you follow the NFL? The Chiefs have had a legitimate shot every year (possibly with the exception of 01). The Cardinals? Not so good.


So have the Dolphins and the Vikings, and I don't consider them successful franchises lately either.

There are lots of teams that "have the potential" (or at least us fans think they do) every year. That's actually that much more of an example of what Peterson is doing wrong. We can build great half-teams for two decades, but can never parlay a stellar half-team into a balanced enough team to be successful in the post season. We can get to the final rung of the ladder one year, only to forget how to climb the next.

KC has been blessed with outstanding coaches under Carl's tenure. Marty built competitive teams without ever having talent on the offensive side of the ball. Now Vermeil is doing it on the opposite side of the ball. Why are we never able to look at a team like the '03 Chiefs and say "we were that close, one big push might get us there"?

dirk digler
03-17-2005, 09:55 AM
That is it.

Peterson has had some successes and some failures. The team has fallen short of the ultimate goal under his tenure. For that reason, I would have been okay with him leaving. He is the GM and the buck stops on his desk. That is a legitimate knock on Peterson.

I disregard the silly claptrap that “Carl does not care about winning.” None of us knows what he cares about. That is childish stuff.

Ditto the complaints about parking, season tickets and beer. That has nothing to do with winning a Super Bowl. Since that is the goal, these are peripheral factors with no value in assessing Peterson’s performance.

I also disregard the arfing about draft picks. Based on articles about the war room on draft day, it is clear that Head Coaches get the players they want. The only exception I can recall is Larry Johnson. Picking Johnson over Vermeil’s wishes was an aberration that garnered a lot of attention. It was unusual.

The complaints about FA is likewise misguided, IMO. Folks on the Planet seem to think that all Peterson has to do is throw out a ton of money and he can round up any FA he wants. That is false. First of all, the guy has to want to play here. Second, Peterson has to keep the cap in mind. He has cap experts to assist in this process. It would serve us well to note that the only time the Chiefs were in Cap Hell was when Peterson did go nuts in FA and brought in some world-class underachievers for Marty.

Once again, I am not a Peterson fan, nor am I a Peterson hater. He has done some good [Marty & Vermeil] and some bad [Gunther, with my 20/20 hindsight]. His record is mixed. That is why I would have been okay to lose him, but am not broken-hearted that he is staying.

xoxo~
Gaz
Just not all that fired up about Peterson.



Great post Gaz except the part about the draft. That is where a GM is supposed to make the biggest difference and he has failed miserably. I lay all of our draft failures at the foot of CP.

Gaz
03-17-2005, 09:55 AM
What about Scott Pioli?

As far as I know, Pioli is secure in his job.

Are you claiming that he is available?

xoxo~
Gaz
Intrigued.

siberian khatru
03-17-2005, 09:56 AM
That is it.

Peterson has had some successes and some failures. The team has fallen short of the ultimate goal under his tenure. For that reason, I would have been okay with him leaving. He is the GM and the buck stops on his desk. That is a legitimate knock on Peterson.

I disregard the silly claptrap that “Carl does not care about winning.” None of us knows what he cares about. That is childish stuff.

Ditto the complaints about parking, season tickets and beer. That has nothing to do with winning a Super Bowl. Since that is the goal, these are peripheral factors with no value in assessing Peterson’s performance.

I also disregard the arfing about draft picks. Based on articles about the war room on draft day, it is clear that Head Coaches get the players they want. The only exception I can recall is Larry Johnson. Picking Johnson over Vermeil’s wishes was an aberration that garnered a lot of attention. It was unusual.

The complaints about FA is likewise misguided, IMO. Folks on the Planet seem to think that all Peterson has to do is throw out a ton of money and he can round up any FA he wants. That is false. First of all, the guy has to want to play here. Second, Peterson has to keep the cap in mind. He has cap experts to assist in this process. It would serve us well to note that the only time the Chiefs were in Cap Hell was when Peterson did go nuts in FA and brought in some world-class underachievers for Marty.

Once again, I am not a Peterson fan, nor am I a Peterson hater. He has done some good [Marty & Vermeil] and some bad [Gunther, with my 20/20 hindsight]. His record is mixed. That is why I would have been okay to lose him, but am not broken-hearted that he is staying.

xoxo~
Gaz
Just not all that fired up about Peterson.



Question, Gaz: What do you think of the timing of this? Considering the team appears to be at a crossroads (this great offense is getting long in the tooth), what do you think about rewarding Carl with job security before the results of this off-season are in? Putting all Carl hatred aside, it just seems to me it would be a prudent business decision to not invest in the future of a guy (any guy -- forget his name his Carl Peterson) until we can see if he can turn things around.

I guess the answer, obviously, is that Lamar has faith in Carl. And that's who ultimately counts, of course. But just from a fan-on-barstool perspective, if you were in charge, would you have at least waited until after the season?

htismaqe
03-17-2005, 09:56 AM
Hiring Gunther was the SAFE move. Carl tried to extend the Marty years by hiring Gunther.

When you get to this level in any profession, whether it be banking, football, or music, you have to take RISKS to get to the next level.

Carl is the ultimate in conservatism. That's his problem.

dirk digler
03-17-2005, 09:57 AM
Hiring Gunther was the SAFE move. Carl tried to extend the Marty years by hiring Gunther.

When you get to this level in any profession, whether it be banking, football, or music, you have to take RISKS to get to the next level.

Carl is the ultimate in conservatism. That's his problem.

He did support Bush/Cheney. :p

Gaz
03-17-2005, 09:58 AM
Great post Gaz except the part about the draft. That is where a GM is supposed to make the biggest difference and he has failed miserably. I lay all of our draft failures at the foot of CP.

Peterson got the players the Head Coaches wanted, with the exception of Johnson. And his selection of Johnson against Vermeil’s wishes was so out of character that it drew considerable attention.

Again, you can play the “buck stops here” card and have a legitimate gripe. But it seems misguided to blame Peterson for picking the players the Coaches wanted.

xoxo~
Gaz
Just trying to be fair.

milkman
03-17-2005, 10:00 AM
I disagree that Marty and Vermeil are good decisions.

And I can not be ambivalent about Carl's extention.

The one single fact that remains, when all the crap is removed from the arguments for Carl, or against him, or even for ambivalence, is that Carl has failed to produce a SB team in 16 years.

And that isn't, or shouldn't be, acceptable.

Coach
03-17-2005, 10:00 AM
If you were in charge, would you have at least waited until after the season?

I know I would wait until after the season before deciding if he should be worthy of getting an extension.

dirk digler
03-17-2005, 10:06 AM
Peterson got the players the Head Coaches wanted, with the exception of Johnson. And his selection of Johnson against Vermeil’s wishes was so out of character that it drew considerable attention.

Again, you can play the “buck stops here” card and have a legitimate gripe. But it seems misguided to blame Peterson for picking the players the Coaches wanted.

xoxo~
Gaz
Just trying to be fair.


My point is that the Chiefs have drafted miserably for a long time? So who gets the blame for that? Is it CP, the coaches, or the scouts? IMO ultimately the blame rests on CP since he is the one in charge.

I also don't know what players the coaches really want or don't want since I am not in the war room at the time. So ultimately it falls back on CP since he is the one that makes the final decision.

siberian khatru
03-17-2005, 10:09 AM
Peterson got the players the Head Coaches wanted, with the exception of Johnson. And his selection of Johnson against Vermeil’s wishes was so out of character that it drew considerable attention.

Again, you can play the “buck stops here” card and have a legitimate gripe. But it seems misguided to blame Peterson for picking the players the Coaches wanted.

xoxo~
Gaz
Just trying to be fair.


I think you too casually dismiss the "buck stops here" issue. When Carl has been in charge as long as he has, it is his organization. He's responsible for picking the player personnel people, he's responsible for hiring the head coach based on philosophy, etc., who then hires assistants who share that philosophy. So if Carl turns drafting decisions over to coaches, that doesn't absolve Carl of responsibility. Whether he's a hands-on drafter or a hands-off drafter, the direction he takes/allows bears his imprint. If the coaches continually screw up drafts, that's Carl's responsibility for allowing them (over and over) to screw up drafts.

Carl's in charge. If he allows other people to make decisions, that doesn't absolve him of the responsibility of allowing other people to make mistakes for him, especially since he's the guy hiring them based on his evaluation of their ability to make decisions for him.

Gaz
03-17-2005, 10:10 AM
Let us first note that I have no inside information as to what Hunt was thinking.

What rationale can we manufacture for the timing of this decision?

1. The Chiefs are looking at a rebuild in either 2006 or 2007. Peterson presided over the rebuild when Marty came to town. The result was a decade of competitive teams. No, none of them went to the Super Bowl, but they were in the AFC West hunt most of the time [personally, I put the lack of Super Bowls on Marty’s ÜberConservative style, but that goes back to “the buck stops here,” so we can leave that on Peterson’s shoulders]. His track record at rebuilding is good. This could be a factor.

2. With Vermeil leaving, maybe Hunt wanted some continuity on the team. Maybe Saunders takes over, maybe not. With Peterson in place, the Chiefs have continuity. Head Coaching decisions will be made by the same guy who scored 66.6% on Head Coach decisions.

3. The team is profitable. How could it not be with Peterson raising parking, ticket and beer prices on a daily basis? Do you cast off a guy who keeps a small-market team financially viable?

Any of these fit the reasonable criterion. Is one or any of them true? I dunno.

xoxo~
Gaz
Speculating wildly.

dirk digler
03-17-2005, 10:11 AM
I think you too casually dismiss the "buck stops here" issue. When Carl has been in charge as long as he has, it is his organization. He's responsible for picking the player personnel people, he's responsible for hiring the head coach based on philosophy, etc., who then hires assistants who share that philosophy. So if Carl turns drafting decisions over to coaches, that doesn't absolve Carl of responsibility. Whether he's a hands-on drafter or a hands-off drafter, the direction he takes/allows bears his imprint. If the coaches continually screw up drafts, that's Carl's responsibility for allowing them (over and over) to screw up drafts.

Carl's in charge. If he allows other people to make decisions, that doesn't absolve him of the responsibility of allowing other people to make mistakes for him, especially since he's the guy hiring them based on his evaluation of their ability to make decisions for him.

Damn that was good. :bravo:

Cochise
03-17-2005, 10:11 AM
:rolleyes: predictable meltdown, but did you people really think that Carl was on his way out?

Mark M
03-17-2005, 10:12 AM
Somewhere, Laz's head just exploded ...

MM
~~:)

dirk digler
03-17-2005, 10:13 AM
Let us first note that I have no inside information as to what Hunt was thinking.

What rationale can be manufacture for the timing of this decision?

1. The Chiefs are looking at a rebuild in either 2006 or 2007. Peterson presided over the rebuild when Marty came to town. The result was a decade of competitive teams. No, none of them went to the Super Bowl, but they were in the AFC West hunt most of the time [personally, I put the lack of Super Bowls on Marty’s ÜberConservative style, but that goes back to “the buck stops here,” so we can leave that on Peterson’s shoulders]. His track record at rebuilding is good. This could be a factor.

2. With Vermeil leaving, maybe Hunt wanted some continuity on the team. Maybe Saunders takes over, maybe not. With Peterson in place, the Chiefs have continuity. Head Coaching decisions will be made by the same guy who scored 66.6% on Head Coach decisions.

3. The team is profitable. How could it not be with Peterson raising parking, ticket and beer prices on a daily basis? Do you cast off a guy who keeps a small-market team financially viable?

Any of these fit the reasonable criterion. Is one or any of them true? I dunno.

xoxo~
Gaz
Speculating wildly.



Good points and I personally think since CP stays there is no way in hell that Al Saunders will be the next head coach. It will be Bill Cowher or Herm Edwards IMO.

dirk digler
03-17-2005, 10:15 AM
:rolleyes: predictable meltdown, but did you people really think that Carl was on his way out?

I am not melting down I just think that Lamar should have waited until the end of the season to make such an important decision. This franchise is at cross roads and Lamar decided to make the safe choice now. It is his choice I just don't agree with it.

Gaz
03-17-2005, 10:15 AM
I think you too casually dismiss the "buck stops here" issue...

I do not dismiss that issue at all.

In fact, I think that it is the only legitimate reason to consider Peterson a failure. The other stuff [parking prices, draft picks, arrogant, STFU & STFD, hairstyle, so forth] is just pointless arfing, IMO.

xoxo~
Gaz
Agrees that the big dog deserves the flack.

siberian khatru
03-17-2005, 10:17 AM
Let us first note that I have no inside information as to what Hunt was thinking.

What rationale can be manufacture for the timing of this decision?

1. The Chiefs are looking at a rebuild in either 2006 or 2007. Peterson presided over the rebuild when Marty came to town. The result was a decade of competitive teams. No, none of them went to the Super Bowl, but they were in the AFC West hunt most of the time [personally, I put the lack of Super Bowls on Marty’s ÜberConservative style, but that goes back to “the buck stops here,” so we can leave that on Peterson’s shoulders]. His track record at rebuilding is good. This could be a factor.

2. With Vermeil leaving, maybe Hunt wanted some continuity on the team. Maybe Saunders takes over, maybe not. With Peterson in place, the Chiefs have continuity. Head Coaching decisions will be made by the same guy who scored 66.6% on Head Coach decisions.

3. The team is profitable. How could it not be with Peterson raising parking, ticket and beer prices on a daily basis? Do you cast off a guy who keeps a small-market team financially viable?

Any of these fit the reasonable criterion. Is one or any of them true? I dunno.

xoxo~
Gaz
Speculating wildly.


Actually, I didn't ask you to speculate, I asked what YOU would do. Would you have waited until the results of this offseason are in? I know neither your nor my opinion counts, but again, this is just barstool conversation. I'm not asking for Carl-bashing, I more interested in it from a general business perspective. If it were your business, would you wait until the results of this important off-season are in?

siberian khatru
03-17-2005, 10:19 AM
I do not dismiss that issue at all.

In fact, I think that it is the only legitimate reason to consider Peterson a failure. The other stuff [parking prices, draft picks, arrogant, STFU & STFD, hairstyle, so forth] is just pointless arfing, IMO.

xoxo~
Gaz
Agrees that the big dog deserves the flack.


OK. I read you saying "But it seems misguided to blame Peterson for picking the players the Coaches wanted," and my reaction was, not it is not misguided, and I stated why.

Your above post, though, clarifies it. I agree with it. Well, even if I didn't agree with it, it still clarified it. :)

dirk digler
03-17-2005, 10:21 AM
I do not dismiss that issue at all.

In fact, I think that it is the only legitimate reason to consider Peterson a failure. The other stuff [parking prices, draft picks, arrogant, STFU & STFD, hairstyle, so forth] is just pointless arfing, IMO.

xoxo~
Gaz
Agrees that the big dog deserves the flack.


CP is a wonderful President which parking, beer prices, and ticket prices falls under. He just hasn't been the greatest GM. Maybe he has too many titles?

Gaz
03-17-2005, 10:24 AM
Yes, I would have waited.

If we have another awful season, then Vermeil’s approach would have to be condemned as a failure and the massive “tear it down to the foundation” rebuild would begin.

Personally, if that were to happen, I would rather it happened with a completely fresh management team.

xoxo~
Gaz
Hopes to be adopted by Hunt in the near future.

kc rush
03-17-2005, 10:25 AM
I think you too casually dismiss the "buck stops here" issue. When Carl has been in charge as long as he has, it is his organization. He's responsible for picking the player personnel people, he's responsible for hiring the head coach based on philosophy, etc., who then hires assistants who share that philosophy. So if Carl turns drafting decisions over to coaches, that doesn't absolve Carl of responsibility. Whether he's a hands-on drafter or a hands-off drafter, the direction he takes/allows bears his imprint. If the coaches continually screw up drafts, that's Carl's responsibility for allowing them (over and over) to screw up drafts.

Carl's in charge. If he allows other people to make decisions, that doesn't absolve him of the responsibility of allowing other people to make mistakes for him, especially since he's the guy hiring them based on his evaluation of their ability to make decisions for him.

REP REP REP - You are right on with this.

dirk digler
03-17-2005, 10:25 AM
Yes, I would have waited.

If we have another awful season, then Vermeil’s approach would have to be condemned as a failure and the massive “tear it down to the foundation” rebuild would begin.

Personally, if that were to happen, I would rather it happened with a completely fresh management team.

xoxo~
Gaz
Hopes to be adopted by Hunt in the near future.


Totally agree.

Cochise
03-17-2005, 10:28 AM
If we have another awful season, then Vermeil’s approach would have to be condemned as a failure and the massive “tear it down to the foundation” rebuild would begin.

Yep, if that were the case, then bring in the wrecking ball.

Course, we could end up like the Browns since their reincarnation.

siberian khatru
03-17-2005, 10:29 AM
Yes, I would have waited.

If we have another awful season, then Vermeil’s approach would have to be condemned as a failure and the massive “tear it down to the foundation” rebuild would begin.

Personally, if that were to happen, I would rather it happened with a completely fresh management team.

xoxo~
Gaz
Hopes to be adopted by Hunt in the near future.


Thank you. I happen to totally agree with that, but that's not the point. Thanks for the input. :thumb:

gblowfish
03-17-2005, 10:31 AM
Dear Loyal, Cash Waving Kansas City Chiefs Fans:

Have I mentioned lately that you are, by far, the best fans in the NFL?

I am pleased to announce today that I've launched a five year plan to get the Kansas City Chiefs into the Super Bowl. Yes, I promise to get the Chiefs to the Super Bowl by 2009, or By God, I'm outta here! I make this sincere promise to you, the best fans in the NFL.

I promise during this five year plan to make sure the stadium is full every game day. Note I say "the stadium" and not Arrowhead. See, Mr. Hunt needs more cash. That means we may need a new stadium during my five year plan to bring a superbowl for Kansas City and their fans, the best fans in the NFL.

Arrowhead is a toilet. We should just call it "The Head." To remain competitive, we need bigger, plusher suites for our corporate captains of industry...and in case Dick Cheney stops in for another visit. We need a rolling roof. We need fur lined sinks. My wife needs a boob job. All this costs money. Lots and lots of money. Which we will squeeze out of you, the most loyal fans in the NFL.

Please memorize these terms by heart:

P-S-L
15% Yearly Increase
$10 Beer
STFD & STFU
"32" Defense
Bob Gretz.

You'll need to internalize this terminology to understand the nuances of my five year plan to get to the Super Bowl. You'll be hearing these words over and over again.

So to you, the greatest fans in the NFL, thank you for your support, financial and otherwise. And by the way, your second season ticket installment is due by April 18th. So pony up, Chiefs Bitch.

Sincerely,
Carl D. Peterson
President
CEO
General Manager
Poop Does Not Stink Poohbah
Kansas City Chiefs

Gaz
03-17-2005, 10:32 AM
I find it misguided to blame Peterson for picking the players the Head Coaches wanted because the HCs are the guys on the battlefield. They bring the scheme they want to run and are responsible for executing that plan on the field.

It would be counterproductive for the GM to hire a HC with a specific strategy and then give him players that do not fit that strategy. The Coach is best qualified to say “that guy fits what I want to do.” The GM should then do his best to get the player the HC wants. The GM hired the Coach for his football expertise. He should defer to that expertise. Put good people in management positions and then get out of the way. That is what an executive should do, IMO.

xoxo~
Gaz
Realizes that putting the HC’s wishes up front gets us a Bartee once in a while.

the Talking Can
03-17-2005, 10:32 AM
12 years without a playoff victory.

CP's evaluation is simple. He's a failure. Next.

kc rush
03-17-2005, 10:33 AM
:rolleyes: predictable meltdown, but did you people really think that Carl was on his way out?

Wishful thinking on my part. I figured that the team was due for a complete restructure within the next couple of years, why not get someone in with a new vision.

A restructure would be more difficult for a new GM if the old GM was taking the team down a different path. It happens all the time when someone inherits someone elses players, coaches and problems, it just means that it takes longer to fix.

Traveller
03-17-2005, 10:36 AM
Peterson got the players the Head Coaches wanted, with the exception of Johnson. And his selection of Johnson against Vermeil’s wishes was so out of character that it drew considerable attention.



Wasn't Trezelle Jenkins a Peterson pick also?

Dr. Van Halen
03-17-2005, 10:46 AM
[QUOTE=jspchief]So have the Dolphins and the Vikings, and I don't consider them successful franchises lately either.

There are lots of teams that "have the potential" (or at least us fans think they do) every year. That's actually that much more of an example of what Peterson is doing wrong. We can build great half-teams for two decades, but can never parlay a stellar half-team into a balanced enough team to be successful in the post season. We can get to the final rung of the ladder one year, only to forget how to climb the next.
QUOTE]

The Vikings were pretty bad in the early '90's. The Dolphins won one division championship since 1985. What Peterson has done here is amazing and rare -- despite not reaching the ultimate goal. It's calling him a failure that I am having trouble with.

Again, I'm obviously a KC apologist, and yet even I can admit that this extention is bizarre. I think the best explanation is that FA's were hesitant to sign because of the uncertainty surrounding next year with both the HC and GM appearing ready to leave. Or, perhaps CP is the kind of an egomaniac who can't walk away from what he built.

Chiefnj
03-17-2005, 10:53 AM
I find it misguided to blame Peterson for picking the players the Head Coaches wanted because the HCs are the guys on the battlefield. They bring the scheme they want to run and are responsible for executing that plan on the field.



Does the head coach pick a position or a specific player? Isn't it the job of the scouts to crunch all the game film and everything else and then present summaries to those above him so they can collectively make the decision? Vermeil admits that defense isn't his forte. Are we expected to believe that even though Vermeil is candid enough to admit this, he is actually THE guy making the defensive choices?

jspchief
03-17-2005, 10:55 AM
The Vikings were pretty bad in the early '90's. The Dolphins won one division championship since 1985. What Peterson has done here is amazing and rare -- despite not reaching the ultimate goal. It's calling him a failure that I am having trouble with.

Wait a minute. First you wanted to talk potential, now you're switching your argument to end results. The Vikings and Dolphins have both been teams that in the last decade or so have appeared to have the potential to be play-off teams. The same "potential to be play-off teams" that you're using as an argument for what Peterson has done well. If we want to add end results, the whole "potetial" thing is baseless any way. Who cares if I thought my car could jump that bridge, if it ends up in the river....


Again, I'm obviously a KC apologist, and yet even I can admit that this extention is bizarre. I think the best explanation is that FA's were hesitant to sign because of the uncertainty surrounding next year with both the HC and GM appearing ready to leave.

If that's the case, this story should have come out March 1st. A little late to worry about what FAs think now that the majority of them are signed with other teams.

Hoover
03-17-2005, 11:01 AM
I'm happy about this.

If Carl is able to get Surtain or Law, the Defense will be in good shape. Add a defensive draft class and the future should remain bright for us Chiefs fans. Sure the high octaine DV offense might be gone when Trent hangs it up or starts to fade, but I must say, if Carl can build a Defense, go go along with Larry Johnson, and Tony G, we could very much end up looking like the Ravens soon, which is fine with me. Now, this Defense has a ways to go to look like the Ravens, but ya never know.

Hoover
03-17-2005, 11:03 AM
I also think while Carl has let his HC pick players, I also think that has changed with the selection of Larry Johnson. I think this is becoming more his team that DV's

KCChiefsFan88
03-17-2005, 11:10 AM
Looks like Lamar Hunt continues to show his lack of commitment to winning by keeping Peterson employed for another 4 years.

Other than the fact Peterson makes Hunt a ton of $$$$$$$$$ and keeps Arrowhead filled, what have the Chiefs done ON the field lately to justify a 4 year contract extension?

Only 2 teams in the NFL have a gone longer without a playoff win than the Chiefs currently

The Chiefs have only made the playoffs once in the past 7 seasons.

Lamar Hunt is pathetic

Rain Man
03-17-2005, 11:14 AM
I was a Carl supporter for more than a decade, in large part out of gratitude for his and Marty's work in pulling the Chiefs out of the abyss. (You younger guys just hear the stories, but let me tell, you, the 70s and 80s were brutal. We were the equivalent of the Bengals or Cardinals of the last decade.)

However, just this last year, I had an epiphany. In 15 years, we would expect an average GM to get us to the Super Bowl. There are 16 teams in the AFC, and one team goes every year. We haven't.

On top of that, Carl has had 15 uninterrupted years in his position. He is one of the senior GMs in the league, and that should give him an enormous advantage over newer GMs who are inheriting stuff from previous administrations. A 15-year GM has completely molded his organization and knows the ropes of the league. Yet somehow it hasn't paid off.

To me, this means that it won't pay off. While I will be eternally grateful to Carl and Marty for making a bad team good, they don't have the capacity to make a good team great. It's time to roll the dice and hope to find someone who can.

Hoover
03-17-2005, 11:15 AM
The only thing that Carl did that pissed me off was after the 2003 season where we didn't get any defensive help. Other than that sure he has made some poor signings, who doesn't (Carlton Gray, Lew Bush) but getting Holmes, Green, that was impressive, but risky.

We all want to be the Patriots, but sorry to tell ya, teams like that are rare. Carl has been consistant in my book.

htismaqe
03-17-2005, 11:15 AM
Wasn't Trezelle Jenkins a Peterson pick also?

Marty LOVED the Jenkins pick IIRC...

siberian khatru
03-17-2005, 11:16 AM
On top of that, Carl has had 15 uninterrupted years in his position. He is one of the senior GMs in the league, and that should give him an enormous advantage over newer GMs who are inheriting stuff from previous administrations. A 15-year GM has completely molded his organization and knows the ropes of the league. Yet somehow it hasn't paid off.

To me, this means that it won't pay off. While I will be eternally grateful to Carl and Marty for making a bad team good, they don't have the capacity to make a good team great. It's time to roll the dice and hope to find someone who can.

WOO-HOO! :clap:

dtebbe
03-17-2005, 11:20 AM
Something tells me that tomorrow we are going to announce a big signing. $20 says they are gonna make fools of anyone who disagrees with this signing. I may be wrong, but the timing of this announcement is odd, now that I think about it.

DT

Traveller
03-17-2005, 11:21 AM
Marty LOVED the Jenkins pick IIRC...

For some reason, I had it stuck in my head an image of Peterson saying he was the one who stumped to make the Jenkins pick.

Didn't know Marty was on board so enthusiastically. Thanks..

Hoover
03-17-2005, 11:22 AM
I was a Carl supporter for more than a decade, in large part out of gratitude for his and Marty's work in pulling the Chiefs out of the abyss. (You younger guys just hear the stories, but let me tell, you, the 70s and 80s were brutal. We were the equivalent of the Bengals or Cardinals of the last decade.)

However, just this last year, I had an epiphany. In 15 years, we would expect an average GM to get us to the Super Bowl. There are 16 teams in the AFC, and one team goes every year. We haven't.

On top of that, Carl has had 15 uninterrupted years in his position. He is one of the senior GMs in the league, and that should give him an enormous advantage over newer GMs who are inheriting stuff from previous administrations. A 15-year GM has completely molded his organization and knows the ropes of the league. Yet somehow it hasn't paid off.

To me, this means that it won't pay off. While I will be eternally grateful to Carl and Marty for making a bad team good, they don't have the capacity to make a good team great. It's time to roll the dice and hope to find someone who can.
You're 15 year thying is a joke if you ask me.

Only 8 teams have represented the AFC in the SB since 1990 (Denver, Buff, San Diago, Pitt, NE, Tenn, Balt, and Oakland)

Three of those teams have been there more than once, Denver 3, Buff 4, NE, 4.

While it is sad that everyone in the AFC West has been to the SB once, its not that we totaly sucked, we have been competitive.

tk13
03-17-2005, 11:23 AM
I was a Carl supporter for more than a decade, in large part out of gratitude for his and Marty's work in pulling the Chiefs out of the abyss. (You younger guys just hear the stories, but let me tell, you, the 70s and 80s were brutal. We were the equivalent of the Bengals or Cardinals of the last decade.)

However, just this last year, I had an epiphany. In 15 years, we would expect an average GM to get us to the Super Bowl. There are 16 teams in the AFC, and one team goes every year. We haven't.

On top of that, Carl has had 15 uninterrupted years in his position. He is one of the senior GMs in the league, and that should give him an enormous advantage over newer GMs who are inheriting stuff from previous administrations. A 15-year GM has completely molded his organization and knows the ropes of the league. Yet somehow it hasn't paid off.

To me, this means that it won't pay off. While I will be eternally grateful to Carl and Marty for making a bad team good, they don't have the capacity to make a good team great. It's time to roll the dice and hope to find someone who can.
I don't think that's necessarily true... doesn't mean Carl should keep his job long enough to find out, but I don't think that means he can't pull it off one year.

Overally, it's just like "Eh" for me. If Carl steps down, Denny Thum becomes GM and Carl becomes "President"... that's just how this organization works. I have to admit I expected CP to step down after the year, and for all we know he still might, but if he did I figured Denny would just slide over... so I guess I'm just not floored. I mean what did everyone expect out of this organization?

Brock
03-17-2005, 11:24 AM
While it is sad that everyone in the AFC West has been to the SB once, its not that we totaly sucked, we have been competitive.

Let's leave the SB out of it. How about a playoff win?

Otter
03-17-2005, 11:25 AM
All I could say is "wow"

:rolleyes:

Hoover
03-17-2005, 11:27 AM
Let's leave the SB out of it. How about a playoff win?
So a team that gets to the playoffs but can win is the GM's fault, come on! Its up to the Players and the HC in the playoffs if you ask me.

Grbac chocked remember, oh wait that was Carl under center...

Dr. Van Halen
03-17-2005, 11:28 AM
Wait a minute. First you wanted to talk potential, now you're switching your argument to end results. The Vikings and Dolphins have both been teams that in the last decade or so have appeared to have the potential to be play-off teams. The same "potential to be play-off teams" that you're using as an argument for what Peterson has done well. If we want to add end results, the whole "potetial" thing is baseless any way. Who cares if I thought my car could jump that bridge, if it ends up in the river....




If that's the case, this story should have come out March 1st. A little late to worry about what FAs think now that the majority of them are signed with other teams.

Good point. I should have said that the Vikings were absolute crap for several years in the '90's and no one expected anything from them and the Dolphins were absolute crap last year with zero expectations. Yes, they had years where people thought they had the potential to win -- but not every year. Having the legitimate potential to win every year is extraordinary. That's what CP did.

I think you've missed most of this argument. The argument is that CP and Mr. Hunt aren't just after $$$ instead of winning. The $$ is the end-result of degrees of success. CP has put together a team that fans believed had the potential for winning, thus money was made.

Hoover
03-17-2005, 11:29 AM
So a team that gets to the playoffs but can win is the GM's fault, come on! Its up to the Players and the HC in the playoffs if you ask me.

Grbac chocked remember, oh wait that was Carl under center...
I love this guy! :D

Brock
03-17-2005, 11:29 AM
So a team that gets to the playoffs but can win is the GM's fault, come on! Its up to the Players and the HC in the playoffs if you ask me.

Grbac chocked remember, oh wait that was Carl under center...

We hold the coaches and players accountable, but let's give the gm who built the team a pass. Brilliant.

RedNFeisty
03-17-2005, 11:31 AM
So a team that gets to the playoffs but can win is the GM's fault, come on! Its up to the Players and the HC in the playoffs if you ask me.

Grbac chocked remember, oh wait that was Carl under center...

It is choice of talent that I hate. He doesn't give his coaches enough say. He is an arrogent and a pompus ass that is worthless.

CoMoChief
03-17-2005, 11:32 AM
As much as I hated and dissrespected Carl Peterson, I even more so now with Lamar Hunt for resigning him to 4 more dreadful player personell years, especially after all of our marquee offensive players retire.

dirk digler
03-17-2005, 11:32 AM
We hold the coaches and players accountable, but let's give the gm who built the team a pass. Brilliant.

What are you talking about? This team doesn't hold ANYONE accountable let alone CP.

the Talking Can
03-17-2005, 11:34 AM
Carl has been consistant in my book.

12 years without a playoff victory.

Not the consistancy I'm looking for.

The one constant in this 12 years of failure is CP.

Brock
03-17-2005, 11:34 AM
Good point. I should have said that the Vikings were absolute crap for several years in the '90's and no one expected anything from them

Umm...huh? Dennis Green was the Vikings coach for all of the 90s. He didn't have a single losing season.

CoMoChief
03-17-2005, 11:34 AM
Originally Posted by Hoover
So a team that gets to the playoffs but can win is the GM's fault, come on! Its up to the Players and the HC in the playoffs if you ask me.

You have to MAKE the playoffs first buddy, thats where the front office comes in, it all starts from there, and Petersons talent evaluations in recent history have been awful (esp. on defense).

Brock
03-17-2005, 11:35 AM
What are you talking about? This team doesn't hold ANYONE accountable let alone CP.

I have no control over what the team does. I am speaking of most fans.

dirk digler
03-17-2005, 11:37 AM
I have no control over what the team does. I am speaking of most fans.

I know I meant the Chiefs don't hold anyone accountable in their organization except for the kickers.

htismaqe
03-17-2005, 11:54 AM
Umm...huh? Dennis Green was the Vikings coach for all of the 90s. He didn't have a single losing season.

The black Marty...

journeyscarab
03-17-2005, 11:55 AM
Crap - Calendar says March 17th..not April 1st. Thanks Lamar - you old coot.

Brock
03-17-2005, 11:55 AM
The black Marty...

Absolutely, they were the Chiefs of the North.

milkman
03-17-2005, 11:56 AM
The black Marty...

The anti-Marty.

siberian khatru
03-17-2005, 11:59 AM
If Carl steps down, Denny Thum becomes GM

For the love of God, NOOOOOOO!!!!

Cochise
03-17-2005, 12:01 PM
The planet is imploding

Dr. Van Halen
03-17-2005, 12:13 PM
Umm...huh? Dennis Green was the Vikings coach for all of the 90s. He didn't have a single losing season.

Umm ... yeah. Jerry Burns was coach in 1990 and 1991. They did not have a winning record either of those years. More importantly to my point, their fans did not have high expectations those years, either.

But, nonetheless, we can agree that this extention is strange, regardless of whether or not you think CP was a total and complete train-wreck failure.

Hoover
03-17-2005, 12:32 PM
So all of you assume that if Carl was gone, ,Thum would step in. So what is the big deal, its all the same anyway.

jspchief
03-17-2005, 12:50 PM
Good point. I should have said that the Vikings were absolute crap for several years in the '90's and no one expected anything from them and the Dolphins were absolute crap last year with zero expectations. Yes, they had years where people thought they had the potential to win -- but not every year. Having the legitimate potential to win every year is extraordinary. That's what CP did.

I think you've missed most of this argument. The argument is that CP and Mr. Hunt aren't just after $$$ instead of winning. The $$ is the end-result of degrees of success. CP has put together a team that fans believed had the potential for winning, thus money was made.

The Vikings have had "potential" for two decades now. They've been a threat to win their division almost every year since Green arrived. Same goes for the Dolphins, they have been mentioned in the top of their division for at least ten years, and had Ricky not joined the Ganja Tour, they would have been picked as a "potential" play-off team in '04.

My point is, you say Carl gave us the "potential" every year. I can agree with that for the most part. But we are a mirror image of the Vikings in that same time span, and the Dolphins have been close to that level. I don't consider either of those teams as anything other than mediocre. Hell, the Vikings have been a lot more successful in that span. If you consider the Vikings and Dolphins to be upper echelon teams, then I could see where you'd feel the same way about the Chiefs. Otherwise, just like those teams, we are just a classic under-achiever/middle of the road team.

The reason I'm "missing" most of your arguement is because your point it harder to pin down than a mexican jumping bean in the stomach of an ADHD jack-rabbit.

jspchief
03-17-2005, 12:51 PM
The black Marty...

And we're the AFC Vikings...

jspchief
03-17-2005, 12:54 PM
You're 15 year thying is a joke if you ask me.

Only 8 teams have represented the AFC in the SB since 1990 (Denver, Buff, San Diago, Pitt, NE, Tenn, Balt, and Oakland)

Three of those teams have been there more than once, Denver 3, Buff 4, NE, 4.

While it is sad that everyone in the AFC West has been to the SB once, its not that we totaly sucked, we have been competitive.

Oh, only 8 teams? That's only half the conference. Thank god we're in the bottom half of the AFC...:rolleyes:

Dr. Van Halen
03-17-2005, 01:01 PM
The reason I'm "missing" most of your arguement is because your point it harder to pin down than a mexican jumping bean in the stomach of an ADHD jack-rabbit.

This was my original point: The argument is that CP and Mr. Hunt aren't just after $$$ instead of winning. The $$$ is the end-result of degrees of success. CP has put together a team that fans believed had the potential for winning, thus money was made.

When I said that you had missed most of my argument, I didn't mean that you are daft and slow, I meant that you might not have been reading the entire thread. Your arguments were tangential at times, which made me think you had missed the original posts. If not, I apologize for not being clear.