View Full Version : Great, another 5 year plan for Carl.

Dave Lane
12-16-2000, 09:50 PM
Peterson, Hunt agree to new five-year contract. Should Chief fans be happy about this, because I sure ain't. :confused:

It looks I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue!

Clint in Wichita
12-16-2000, 10:05 PM
Here is a poll: Was it Carl's fault or Marty''s fault that the 3 potentual super bowl teams we had didn't get there in the 90's?

Argument against Carl: Didn't get enough talent for Marty to win in the playoffs, we only won because of Marty's great coaching abilities.

Argument against Marty: Refused to play younger players while Carl wanted to, based on his own admission, which probably affected how we drafted and how we developed players. Questionable coaching decisions were major factors in blowing HFA in '95 and '97, failed to prepare team to play Minnesota in '93 which helped cost us HFA.


12-17-2000, 01:12 AM
Da Wolf,

Teams dont get to Super Bowls with the likes of Steve Bono, Elvis Grbac, Lake Dawson, and Greg Hill. Its a credit to Marty to will his teams to 13-3 records. Bono, Dawson, and Hill are all out of the league. That should tell you something right there. It takes talent to win super bowls, and obviously, Carl didnt supply a lot of talent for Marty.

Clint in Wichita
12-17-2000, 02:02 AM
I'll counter with Hostetler, Doug Williams, Mark Rypien, Jim McMahon, etc. Certainly there have been teams that have won it without studs running the offense. Now consider we had in '93 Joe Montana and a good running game behind him. '95 Steve Bono was a pro bowler and had one of the top rushing offenses and a great D. '97 we had the top runnng game and one of the best D's in the NFL. Now '95 the loss was not just due to Bono and Elliot, but Paul Hackett and his refusal to run the ball, which when we did was effective. Also Marty was very late in pulling the QB when it was obvious he wasn't having a good game. In '97 you have the controversial decision to switch QB's (which I agreed with, but we'll use it for the sake of argument) the fake FG call, Hackett skipping a week of preperation to recruit for USC, and then his refusal to open it up in the 1st half, etc. Now had some of these on the field things been taken care of you could have had a different outcome.

Now I am of the opinion that Carl shares some fault here obviously. But how do we know that the lack of offensive playmakers aquired by Peterson was not predicated on Marty and his philosophy? After all, Marty admitted this week that Carl was the one who wanted to aquire and play young guys and develop them, but Marty was resistant to that and wanted to play vets. When your offensive philosophy is to run the ball, shorten the game, not make mistakes, your proiorities are not going to be playmaking recievers and QB's, it is going to be a big OL, a good defense, recievers who can block, and a QB who is good enough to hand off and play action and play not to lose...

Griese Fan
12-17-2000, 06:37 AM
Da Wolf,
Where did you hear or see this statement regarding younger players by Marty? It has always been my argument that CP signed and drafted players that fit into Marty's image. No one really listens to that. Everything bad about the KC Chiefs is CP's fault and Marty was the greatest coach to walk the face of the earth, to the CP haters.
the milkman
never liked Marty

Griese Fan
12-17-2000, 06:53 AM
For those of us that felt that Marty bore most of the reponsibility for our playoff failures, if CP retains MaGoonther after this season, then CP will have to be held responsible for the Chiefs failures since Marty left.
the milkman
ready to point the finger at CP