PDA

View Full Version : Keitzman is hammering CP on 810


The Bad Guy
04-20-2005, 05:25 PM
This is great radio.

He just stated a fact. Carl has drafted 3 pro bowl players on defense since he took over.

Jerome Woods, Derrick Thomas and Dale Carter are the only 3 players he has drafted on defense.

That is unbelievable. Woods got it on a sympathy vote too.

If you have time, tune in. He makes a lot of great points whether you hate him or not.

He just played clips that Carl stated he never received one ounce of negative criticism from fans. He also said that the 72,000 season ticket holders are the "real" fans.

The more I hear CP talk, the more I wish he would just vanish off the face of the earth.

jcroft
04-20-2005, 05:26 PM
Keitzman is ranting? *yawn*

The Bad Guy
04-20-2005, 05:27 PM
Keitzman is ranting? *yawn*

He's speaking the truths about Carl Peterson. The friggen Chiefs and Carl's draft record deserves to be ranted on.

eazyb81
04-20-2005, 05:28 PM
Normally I can't stand KK, but he is making some great points today. I don't know if this town can survive another awful Chiefs draft.

ENDelt260
04-20-2005, 05:28 PM
Keitzman is hammering CP on 810

Is it Wednesday already?

Bootlegged
04-20-2005, 05:29 PM
water is wet

the sky is blue

women have secrets

Carl can't draft.

Dave Lane
04-20-2005, 05:30 PM
Its pretty funny actually.

Dave

NaptownChief
04-20-2005, 05:31 PM
Beating up Peterson at some point has to feel like beating up on the short, fat kid...Way too easy of a target.

morphius
04-20-2005, 05:31 PM
I don't need to here K repeat his same old rant again, thank you.

I think 90% of us already know all of the facts about our team.

jcroft
04-20-2005, 05:32 PM
He's speaking the truths about Carl Peterson. The friggen Chiefs and Carl's draft record deserves to be ranted on.

I agree completely. Still doesn't mean I want to hear ANOTHER Keitzman rant on ANOTHER day. I'm tired of his voice.

jcroft
04-20-2005, 05:33 PM
water is wet

the sky is blue

women have secrets

Carl can't draft.

water is wet

the sky is blue

women have secrets

Car'l can't draft.

Keitzman will find something to rant about.

Logical
04-20-2005, 05:34 PM
...
The more I hear CP talk, the more I wish he would just vanish off the face of the earth.

Lamar would just declare it the end times and say that Carl had been taken by the Holy Spirit.

Deberg_1990
04-20-2005, 05:37 PM
Yes, Carl, cant draft.....we all know that. Keitzman, the fans, we planeteers, can rant and rave all we want, but it doesnt make one bit of difference to the only person that matters Lamar Hunt. It wont matter to him until Arrowhead is only half full on Sundays. I dont see that happening anytime soon.

TRR
04-20-2005, 05:57 PM
Until Keitzman produces stats of what other NFL teams have done (offensively and defensively) in the same time span, then I really could care less.

How many Pro Bowl D players have the Cardinals drafted, etc....

And when did the "Pro Bowl" become the definition of a quality football player?

Calcountry
04-20-2005, 06:00 PM
water is wet

the sky is blue

women have secrets

Carl can't draft.Yep, I think there is a sequel to the "White men can't jump", in there somewhere.

"Carl can't draft" the movie.

Would you watch it?

Calcountry
04-20-2005, 06:01 PM
Beating up Peterson at some point has to feel like beating up on the short, fat kid...Way too easy of a target.ROFL

Tribal Warfare
04-20-2005, 06:03 PM
If Carl has any balls he'll pull the trigger on a DJ trade up trade down their 2nd round pick pick up a 2nd and 3rd use the 3rd for Surtain and the 2nd for DJ plus a 5th for the #9-#11 spot

The Bad Guy
04-20-2005, 06:05 PM
If Carl has any balls he'll pull the trigger on a DJ trade up trade down their 2nd round pick pick up a 2nd and 3rd use the 3rd for Surtain and the 2nd for DJ plus a 5th for the #9-#11 spot

Yeah, like that would ever happen.

How in the hell would he trade up to get DJ, and then keep a 2nd rounder to trade down with in the first place?

KevB
04-20-2005, 06:09 PM
Until Keitzman produces stats of what other NFL teams have done (offensively and defensively) in the same time span, then I really could care less.

How many Pro Bowl D players have the Cardinals drafted, etc....

And when did the "Pro Bowl" become the definition of a quality football player?

Do you really want to use the Cardinals as the benchmark for our Chiefs?

And to use one of our rivals as an example:

Broncos since 1989 - Atwater, Trevor Pryce, Al Wilson, Tory James, Deltha O'Neal and John Mobley. I would also take DJ Williams over any LB we have on our roster today.

jcroft
04-20-2005, 06:11 PM
If Carl has any balls...

You've been here long enough to make over 2000 posts (under this screename, anyway) and you still think it's possible Carl has any balls?

Hoover
04-20-2005, 06:13 PM
Beating up Peterson at some point has to feel like beating up on the short, fat kid...Way too easy of a target.
Why do you have to bring me into this?






:D

TRR
04-20-2005, 06:15 PM
Do you really want to use the Cardinals as the benchmark for our Chiefs?

And to use one of our rivals as an example:

Broncos since 1989 - Atwater, Trevor Pryce, Al Wilson, Tory James, Deltha O'Neal and John Mobley. I would also take DJ Williams over any LB we have on our roster today.

The Cardinals were used as an example, not a benchmark. And how many Pro Bowlers on offense have the Broncos drafted in the same time frame? If you averaged it out, I believe every team (offensively and defensively) would have similiar numbers as far as drafting Pro Bowlers.

With the way FA is, the draft plays less and less of a role every year.

And again, when did an invitation to the Pro Bowl start equaling exceptional talent? Look at Tory James and Deltha O"Neal for 2 perfect examples.

Chief Henry
04-20-2005, 06:16 PM
[QUOTE=TRR]
How many Pro Bowl D players have the Cardinals drafted, etc....

QUOTE]



This SUCKS, now we are being compared to the :cuss: :cuss:
Arizona Cardinals. Look how fricken low this franchise has become...

CosmicPal
04-20-2005, 06:17 PM
Deltha O'Neal

Not a good example. The guy was worse than Bartee and the Broncs couldn't wait to get rid of him.

TRR
04-20-2005, 06:19 PM
[QUOTE=TRR]
How many Pro Bowl D players have the Cardinals drafted, etc....

QUOTE]



This SUCKS, now we are being compared to the :cuss: :cuss:
Arizona Cardinals. Look how fricken low this franchise has become...

Never compared KC with the Cardinals.

Phobia
04-20-2005, 06:22 PM
Not a good example. The guy was worse than Bartee and the Broncs couldn't wait to get rid of him.

Well, he did make a pro-bowl courtesy of Trent Green.

FWIW, Gary Stills has made a Pro-Bowl, too.

Phobia
04-20-2005, 06:23 PM
Never compared KC with the Cardinals.

I have. The Cardinals won a playoff game 5 years ago. Where does that leave the Chiefs?

Hoover
04-20-2005, 06:23 PM
Its not about Pro Bowls, its about defensive rankings. And the Chiefs have sucked on that side of the ball since 2000.

Tribal Warfare
04-20-2005, 06:23 PM
You've been here long enough to make over 2000 posts (under this screename, anyway) and you still think it's possible Carl has any balls?


It's was a rhetorical remark

jcroft
04-20-2005, 06:24 PM
It's was a rhetorical remark

You've been here long enough to make over 2000 posts (on this screenname, anyway), and you still think there's such a thing as "rhetorical" at ChiefsPlanet?

tk13
04-20-2005, 06:27 PM
With the way FA is, the draft plays less and less of a role every year.


I don't agree with that. Free agency is a tool that should be used to make a few moves to put a team over the top that has drafted well. If you look at the Pats, Eagles, Colts, etc... that's how successful teams do it. Sometimes I think the Chiefs are lucky to be as good as they are, because we just don't draft well at all. You look at these top playoff teams year in and year out, and the Pats draft extremely well as we know, the Colts drafted a slew of offensive studs and Freeney, the Falcons drafted guys like Vick and Kerney and Brooking and Crumpler, the Eagles drafted McNabb and maybe the best secondary in the game, the Steelers drafted Roethlisberger last year, to go along with guys like Hines Ward and several defensive players... we don't compare to any of those teams. We drafted Will Shields ages ago, Tony Gonzalez, Dante Hall, a couple safeties who fell off the earth last year, Warfield, Larry Johnson and Jared Allen. Is that it? I don't know, just doesn't seem like we're in the same league draft-wise with those other teams.

milkman
04-20-2005, 06:27 PM
The Cardinals were used as an example, not a benchmark. And how many Pro Bowlers on offense have the Broncos drafted in the same time frame? If you averaged it out, I believe every team (offensively and defensively) would have similiar numbers as far as drafting Pro Bowlers.

With the way FA is, the draft plays less and less of a role every year.

And again, when did an invitation to the Pro Bowl start equaling exceptional talent? Look at Tory James and Deltha O"Neal for 2 perfect examples.

I would disagree with that.
You need the draft to build a core group of talent, and FA to finish up the product.

But with Carl, we have to put together that core group through FA, and then try to finish it up with the draft.

And that plan ain't working, cause Carl can't draft.

And we are using that plan, because Carl can't draft.

The Bad Guy
04-20-2005, 06:28 PM
Until Keitzman produces stats of what other NFL teams have done (offensively and defensively) in the same time span, then I really could care less.

How many Pro Bowl D players have the Cardinals drafted, etc....

And when did the "Pro Bowl" become the definition of a quality football player?

Pro Bowl is certainly the bench mark they use when defining a player.

Cardinals have drafted Simeon Rice, Aeneas Williams, Jamir Miller, Eric Swann are just ones I can think of off the top of my head on defense.

But regardless, so the Cardinals have sucked at drafting that gives Carl a pass?

That's like a kid bringing home his report card and his parents asked him why he failed and then he says, "Well my best friend failed too."

Tribal Warfare
04-20-2005, 06:29 PM
You've been here long enough to make over 2000 posts (on this screenname, anyway), and you still think there's such a thing as "rhetorical" at ChiefsPlanet?

nlm

jcroft
04-20-2005, 06:30 PM
nlm

Hehe. I'm just f'ing with ya, man. :D

TRR
04-20-2005, 06:31 PM
I don't agree with that. Free agency is a tool that should be used to make a few moves to put a team over the top that has drafted well. If you look at the Pats, Eagles, Colts, etc... that's how successful teams do it. Sometimes I think the Chiefs are lucky to be as good as they are, because we just don't draft well at all. You look at these top playoff teams year in and year out, and the Pats draft extremely well as we know, the Colts drafted a slew of offensive studs, the Falcons drafted guys like Vick and Kerney and Brooking and Crumpler, the Eagles drafted McNabb and maybe the best secondary in the game, the Steelers drafted Roethlisberger last year, to go along with guys like Hines Ward and several defensive players... we don't compare to any of those teams. We drafted Will Shields ages ago, Tony Gonzalez, Dante Hall, a couple safeties who fell off the earth last year, Warfield, Larry Johnson and Jared Allen. Is that it? I don't know, just doesn't seem comparable.

You can't possibly say that the draft has the same impact now as it did when Peterson first got to Kansas City. Year after year, teams can stock up in FA, and draft players strictly for depth purposes. When Peterson first arrived in KC, your 1st round pick had to be a player that could come in and start right away. Not so with the way the salary cap can be jostled around now days.

The draft is still important, no doubt. But because of FA, a player will be drafted in the first round, ride the pine for 2 to 3 seasons, have one good season, and depart via FA with a hefty contract. That is not always the case, but is becoming more of the norm.

TRR
04-20-2005, 06:36 PM
But regardless, so the Cardinals have sucked at drafting that gives Carl a pass?

I never said that. And for the record, I do think Peterson struggles when it comes to drafting, however, I think every team has it's problems when it comes to the draft. Peterson will never get a free pass, I just think that Peterson does a little better job than some give him credit for.

Either way, Peterson is KC's GM. There isn't a whole lot we can do about it.

TRR
04-20-2005, 06:38 PM
I would disagree with that.
You need the draft to build a core group of talent, and FA to finish up the product.

But with Carl, we have to put together that core group through FA, and then try to finish it up with the draft.

And that plan ain't working, cause Carl can't draft.

And we are using that plan, because Carl can't draft.

If I were a GM, I would do it just as Peterson does. I think your core players have to come through FA. NFL vets are proven, and can get the job done. The draft is too much of a crap shoot to expect draftees to become your core players.

KCChiefsFan88
04-20-2005, 06:41 PM
Yes, Carl, cant draft.....we all know that. Keitzman, the fans, we planeteers, can rant and rave all we want, but it doesnt make one bit of difference to the only person that matters Lamar Hunt. It wont matter to him until Arrowhead is only half full on Sundays. I dont see that happening anytime soon.


Good point, which is why its almost pointless to continue blaming Peterson. Instead why doesn't the media focus on Lamar Hunt and question how he can be seriously committed to winning if he continues to employ Peterson, despite the Chiefs having zero playoff wins in 11 years, only 1 playoff appearence in the past 7 seasons, etc.

tk13
04-20-2005, 06:46 PM
If I were a GM, I would do it just as Peterson does. I think your core players have to come through FA. NFL vets are proven, and can get the job done. The draft is too much of a crap shoot to expect draftees to become your core players.
I don't know about that, sure seems like most Super Bowl teams and other top contenders have built themselves through a core of drafted players, while teams like Dallas and Washington seem to struggle every year.

milkman
04-20-2005, 06:49 PM
I don't know about that, sure seems like most Super Bowl teams and other top contenders have built themselves through a core of drafted players, while teams like Dallas and Washington seem to struggle every year.

Exactly.

Logical
04-20-2005, 06:49 PM
You can't possibly say that the draft has the same impact now as it did when Peterson first got to Kansas City. Year after year, teams can stock up in FA, and draft players strictly for depth purposes. When Peterson first arrived in KC, your 1st round pick had to be a player that could come in and start right away. Not so with the way the salary cap can be jostled around now days.

The draft is still important, no doubt. But because of FA, a player will be drafted in the first round, ride the pine for 2 to 3 seasons, have one good season, and depart via FA with a hefty contract. That is not always the case, but is becoming more of the norm.

Gee then Carl was a colossal failure from the very beginning except for DT. Look at his first 7years (pre-free agency), other than DT there were no other instant starters and in fact almost none of them went on to become starters.

89 Derrick Thomas (only starter his full first year)
90 Percy Snow (never a starter)
91 Harvey Williams (never a starter)
92 Dale Carter (not an instant starter)
93 No first round draft pick
94 Greg Hill (never really a starter)
95 Trezelle Jenkins (never really even played)

C-Mac
04-20-2005, 06:52 PM
Until Keitzman produces stats of what other NFL teams have done (offensively and defensively) in the same time span, then I really could care less.

How many Pro Bowl D players have the Cardinals drafted, etc....

And when did the "Pro Bowl" become the definition of a quality football player?

One must also consider that the Chiefs thru out the 90's, didnt have a the luxury to draft high up on the board and didnt have a first round pick a couple of times. But regardless, Peterson has still for the most part, always tried to put a competitive team on the field each year.

Logical
04-20-2005, 06:52 PM
If I were a GM, I would do it just as Peterson does. I think your core players have to come through FA. NFL vets are proven, and can get the job done. The draft is too much of a crap shoot to expect draftees to become your core players.

So then you would have to agree that Carl is being really stupid forl not giving up a #2 for Patrick Surtain.

TRR
04-20-2005, 07:00 PM
So then you would have to agree that Carl is being really stupid forl not giving up a #2 for Patrick Surtain.

Completely stupid. However, now that the deal went down for Buchanon, I believe it will take more than just a 2nd to land Patrick Surtain.

To clarify again, I believe Peterson has struggled at GM. However, placing 100% of the blame on Peterson isn't fair IMHO. Peterson isn't the only one in the war room on Saturday and Sunday.

I try not to get too hyped up about the draft anymore. I was livid when we drafted Sly Morris a couple of years ago, and I almost drove myself to the insane asylum with the LJ pick as well (that is why I am not a GM). So now, I just sit back and take it all in.

keg in kc
04-20-2005, 07:01 PM
I don't know about that, sure seems like most Super Bowl teams and other top contenders have built themselves through a core of drafted players, while teams like Dallas and Washington seem to struggle every year.I think that's right. The league has matured and doesn't treat free agency like it did in the mid- to late-90s. Successful teams draft stars that they retain and only make occasional forays into free agency for 'name' players. Generally those moves are made as a luxury rather than a need. On the flip side, teams like us are left trying to correct repeated draft mistakes by gambling on older and/or injured players. Consistent success in the NFL today is clearly dependent upon a strong core of drafted players and, beyond that, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to connect our draft results to our on-the-field results.

Taco John
04-20-2005, 07:07 PM
Until Keitzman produces stats of what other NFL teams have done (offensively and defensively) in the same time span, then I really could care less.

How many Pro Bowl D players have the Cardinals drafted, etc....

And when did the "Pro Bowl" become the definition of a quality football player?



That's a new one... A dog who wants to have his nose rubbed into it... Nay. Demands.

TRR
04-20-2005, 07:08 PM
I think that's right. The league has matured and doesn't treat free agency like it did in the mid- to late-90s. Successful teams draft stars that they retain and only make occasional forays into free agency for 'name' players. Generally those moves are made as a luxury rather than a need. On the flip side, teams like us are left trying to correct repeated draft mistakes by gambling on older and/or injured players. Consistent success in the NFL today is clearly dependent upon a strong core of drafted players and, beyond that, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to connect our draft results to our on-the-field results.

Well, IMO, the Patriots would have never won the Super Bowl without Corey Dillon last season, so as I said before. I think it averages out.

It depends on the individual.

TRR
04-20-2005, 07:10 PM
That's a new one... A dog who wants to have his nose rubbed into it... Nay. Demands.

ZZZ ....Your still here.

milkman
04-20-2005, 07:11 PM
Well, IMO, the Patriots would have never won the Super Bowl without Corey Dillon last season, so as I said before. I think it averages out.

It depends on the individual.

So how did they do it without Dillon twice before.

Even if your assumption were true, it is still a team that has drafted a core group of talent, and used FA to tweak the roster.

whoman69
04-20-2005, 07:13 PM
Until Keitzman produces stats of what other NFL teams have done (offensively and defensively) in the same time span, then I really could care less.

How many Pro Bowl D players have the Cardinals drafted, etc....

And when did the "Pro Bowl" become the definition of a quality football player?
You want to compare us to one of the worst franchises in the league? In order for us to win the SB, we need to compare favorably to the best teams in the league. I did a post awhile back comparing us to the Steelers. They kicked our asses, not even close. No search function or I'd find it for you.

TRR
04-20-2005, 07:13 PM
So how did they do it without Dillon twice before.

Even if your assumption were true, it is still a team that has drafted a core group of talent, and used FA to tweak the roster.

Yeah, I think I've explained that one enough already.

Next....

keg in kc
04-20-2005, 07:14 PM
Well, IMO, the Patriots would have never won the Super Bowl without Corey Dillon last season, so as I said before. I think it averages out.

It depends on the individual.Besides pointing out that he was not a free agent and they won two Superbowls before his arrival, I'd reiterate this point:Successful teams draft stars that they retain and only make occasional forays into free agency for 'name' players.

TRR
04-20-2005, 07:14 PM
You want to compare us to one of the worst franchises in the league? In order for us to win the SB, we need to compare favorably to the best teams in the league. I did a post awhile back comparing us to the Steelers. They kicked our asses, not even close. No search function or I'd find it for you.

Talk about not getting the gist of a post...

I never compared KC to Arizona. I just used Arizona as an example, just as the other poster did with Denver. No comparison, just an example as to how (offensively and defensively) things even out.

TRR
04-20-2005, 07:15 PM
Besides pointing out that he was not a free agent and they won two Superbowls before his arrival, I'd reiterate this point:

FA/Trade...Same thing. And I wasn't talking about the past 2 Super Bowls. Every season is different.

keg in kc
04-20-2005, 07:17 PM
FA/Trade...Same thing. And I wasn't talking about the past 2 Super Bowls. Every season is different.You can't talk about the consistent success or failure of any franchise based on just one season.

htismaqe
04-20-2005, 07:52 PM
Kevin Keitzman is indicative of PRECISELY why Carl Peterson is still here.

If KC had anything resembling REAL MEDIA instead of these morons, maybe they could have affected some real change.

htismaqe
04-20-2005, 08:05 PM
Gee then Carl was a colossal failure from the very beginning except for DT. Look at his first 7years (pre-free agency), other than DT there were no other instant starters and in fact almost none of them went on to become starters.

89 Derrick Thomas (only starter his full first year)
90 Percy Snow (never a starter)
91 Harvey Williams (never a starter)
92 Dale Carter (not an instant starter)
93 No first round draft pick
94 Greg Hill (never really a starter)
95 Trezelle Jenkins (never really even played)

If Carl Peterson's drafts are so BAD, why bother making stuff up that's not true?

Harvey Williams started for 2 full years after leaving KC and rushed for back-to-back 1000-yard seasons.

Greg Hill was a starter for 2 different teams but broke both legs.

keg in kc
04-20-2005, 08:06 PM
If Carl Peterson's drafts are so BAD, why bother making stuff up that's not true?Yeah, the facts on their own are enough to make that point abundantly clear.

Logical
04-20-2005, 08:07 PM
If Carl Peterson's drafts are so BAD, why bother making stuff up that's not true?

Harvey Williams started for 2 full years after leaving KC and rushed for back-to-back 1000-yard seasons.

Greg Hill was a starter for 2 different teams but broke both legs.

Uh the point I was responding to, was that he said prior to free agency it was critical that your first round draft choice start right away. Neither of those players started for the Chiefs either right away or for that matter pretty much ever.

Logical
04-20-2005, 08:09 PM
Kevin Keitzman is indicative of PRECISELY why Carl Peterson is still here.

If KC had anything resembling REAL MEDIA instead of these morons, maybe they could have affected some real change.

So why is it acceptable to bash on the KC media, but not Rufus Dawes? Seems like you are being inconsistent. Not that your point is not correct.

htismaqe
04-20-2005, 08:10 PM
Uh the point I was responding to, was that he said prior to free agency it was critical that your first round draft choice start right away. Neither of those players started for the Chiefs either right away or for that matter pretty much ever.

Then why did you say "and in fact almost none of them went on to become starters" when 4 of the 6 players you listed DID?

htismaqe
04-20-2005, 08:12 PM
Yeah, the facts on their own are enough to make that point abundantly clear.

Exactly.

Could have added Victory Riley, or Sylvester Morris, or Ryan Sims to that list...

Good God his drafts have been horrible. :banghead:

Logical
04-20-2005, 08:12 PM
Then why did you say "and in fact almost none of them went on to become starters" when 4 of the 6 players you listed DID?

Clearly I should have said for the Chiefs, my error.

htismaqe
04-20-2005, 08:12 PM
So why is it acceptable to bash on the KC media, but not Rufus Dawes? Seems like you are being inconsistent. Not that your point is not correct.

Where did I EVER say it's not acceptable to bash on Dawes?

I merely pointed out the irony (and HYPOCRISY) of posting Dawes' articles here for "entertainment" purposes.

TRR
04-20-2005, 08:12 PM
Uh the point I was responding to, was that he said prior to free agency it was critical that your first round draft choice start right away. Neither of those players started for the Chiefs either right away or for that matter pretty much ever.

I never said prior to FA. Re-read the post(s).

htismaqe
04-20-2005, 08:14 PM
Clearly I should have said for the Chiefs, my error.

No problemo. :thumb:

In that case, add Victor Riley and possibly even John Tait.

And then there's Joe Horn and Greg Favors.

Goddammit Jim! :banghead:

Logical
04-20-2005, 08:16 PM
I never said prior to FA. Re-read the post(s).

You can't possibly say that the draft has the same impact now as it did when Peterson first got to Kansas City. Year after year, teams can stock up in FA, and draft players strictly for depth purposes. When Peterson first arrived in KC, your 1st round pick had to be a player that could come in and start right away. Not so with the way the salary cap can be jostled around now days.

While I agree you did not say it dirctly you certainly seemed to imply it with the year after year teams can stock up in FA statement. If I read something into it you did not intend, my error, and my apologies.

TRR
04-20-2005, 08:18 PM
While I agree you did not say it dirctly you certainly seemed to imply it with the year after year teams can stock up in FA statement. If I read something into it you did not intend, my error, and my apologies.

I didn't mean to imply. No big thing Vlad.

htismaqe
04-20-2005, 08:23 PM
My point is this:

Carl Peterson is a joke. Rufus Dawes is quite possibly the lowest-class Bush League insult to fans in all of professional sports, let alone the NFL.

But everytime a guy like KK or Whitlock levels a VALID criticism against him, all he has to do is say "Yeah, look who that came from. Mr. Pants around his ankles, or Mr. Walked out of his radio show while on the air."

Logical
04-20-2005, 08:25 PM
My point is this:

Carl Peterson is a joke. Rufus Dawes is quite possibly the lowest-class Bush League insult to fans in all of professional sports, let alone the NFL.

But everytime a guy like KK or Whitlock levels a VALID criticism against him, all he has to do is say "Yeah, look who that came from. Mr. Pants around his ankles, or Mr. Walked out of his radio show while on the air."

Now, now, Rufus will have a hard time beating out Al D_avis:p

NJ Chief Fan
04-20-2005, 08:31 PM
Yep, I think there is a sequel to the "White men can't jump", in there somewhere.

"Carl can't draft" the movie.



Would you watch it?


ive been watchin it for to long dont think so

KChiefs1
04-20-2005, 09:12 PM
I think your core players have to come through FA. NFL vets are proven, and can get the job done. The draft is too much of a crap shoot to expect draftees to become your core players.

I think you'll find "most" great teams were built through the draft(Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys) but in today's era you need to have a good combination of great drafts & making correct decision in the FA market. Obviously if Carl had drafted the correct players over the last few years to go along with the Priest Holmes & Willie Roaf's the Chiefs would be up in the Patriots echelon. You have to have a few years of great drafts to go along with the correct signings of FA's.

DAMMIT CARL!!!!!!!! :cuss:

KevB
04-20-2005, 09:25 PM
The reason you build through the draft is that it's cheaper. You get a 2nd, 3rd, 4th round pick signed to a three or four year deal at a reasonable price. If you go sign a vet, they get paid more...plain and simple. The Eagles have guys like Sheppard, Brown, M. Lewis, etc. who aren't getting paid as much as guys like Woods, Wesley and Warfield despite the painful disparity in level of play. Why? The Chiefs have years in the league which means money.

I really can't believe anyone believes that FA/trade is even remotely as important as building through the draft. Hell, not many teams have done better through FA/trade than the Chiefs, and look at our lack of success on the field. We're the perfect counterpoint.

Simplex3
04-20-2005, 09:54 PM
Cardinals have drafted Simeon Rice, Aeneas Williams, Jamir Miller, Eric Swann are just ones I can think of off the top of my head on defense.
Pat Tillman (7th rnd), Anquan Boldin, Larry Fitzgerald, Leonard Davis, David Boston, LJ Shelton, Cory Chavous, Michael Pittman, Frank Sanders, Garrison Hearst, Jeff Christy, Ricky Proehl, Larry Centers, Tom Tupa...


Oh, and Jake Plummer. :)

wazu
04-20-2005, 10:35 PM
Kietzman was on fire today! I usually can't stand the guy, but apparently bashing Carl is his strong suit.

Unbelievably good radio!

Messier
04-20-2005, 10:38 PM
I think we can all find common ground in the fact that KK is a major dillweed that wants to watch Jack Harry golf nude.

keg in kc
04-20-2005, 10:38 PM
I can't listen to Kietzman.

Not because I can't stand him but because I can't stand Clinkscale. That guy is like fingernails on a chalkboard for me.

wazu
04-20-2005, 10:43 PM
I can't listen to Kietzman.

Not because I can't stand him but because I can't stand Clinkscale. That guy is like fingernails on a chalkboard for me.

I can't stand him either...usually. Today was one of those epic rants, though. Up there with Jim Rome, and that time Soren Petro ripped Frank Thomas up and down while calling him the "Big Skirt". "Fatty is ALWAYS hurt!"

KK was feeling the flow today, doing the bull dance. It was as if all of the stars aligned just right. Honestly, it was amazing. And once again, I can't stand Keitzman. I was just flipping through AM stations when I landed on it.

Count Alex's Wins
04-20-2005, 10:53 PM
Keitzman is a whore. I'll never forget when he put that Donkey jacket on at Invesco. And he was too spineless to stand up to my e-mail challenge.

That being said, Carl is a whore too, and he can go to hell.

I wonder if I would get arrested at Arrowhead for wearing a T-shirt that said:

CARL SUCKS
DICK BLOWS

CosmicPal
04-20-2005, 10:56 PM
Keitzman is a whore. I'll never forget when he put that Donkey jacket on at Invesco. And he was too spineless to stand up to my e-mail challenge.

That being said, Carl is a whore too, and he can go to hell.

I wonder if I would get arrested at Arrowhead for wearing a T-shirt that said:

CARL SUCKS
DICK BLOWS

You won't get arrested, but you might get a hand-job from a Broncos fan who's turned on by your message.

alanm
04-21-2005, 01:08 AM
Until Keitzman produces stats of what other NFL teams have done (offensively and defensively) in the same time span, then I really could care less.

How many Pro Bowl D players have the Cardinals drafted, etc....

And when did the "Pro Bowl" become the definition of a quality football player?
I put more stock in guys making the All Pro Team. Not everybody who goes to the Pro Bowl makes the All Pro Team.

alanm
04-21-2005, 01:14 AM
I would disagree with that.
You need the draft to build a core group of talent, and FA to finish up the product.

But with Carl, we have to put together that core group through FA, and then try to finish it up with the draft.

And that plan ain't working, cause Carl can't draft.

And we are using that plan, because Carl can't draft.
There's a song in here somewhere, isn't there? :hmmm:

tomahawk kid
04-21-2005, 07:20 AM
I'm just amazed that KK stopped banging on his intern girlfriend long enough to bang on Carl.....

Hercules Rockefell
04-21-2005, 07:35 AM
I put more stock in guys making the All Pro Team. Not everybody who goes to the Pro Bowl makes the All Pro Team.

and every few years you get an All-Pro who was a Pro Bowl snub

Hercules Rockefell
04-21-2005, 07:40 AM
And how many Pro Bowlers on offense have the Broncos drafted in the same time frame?

Sharpe, Nalen, TD, Rod Smith (UDFA), Griese, Portis and if you want to count him too, Elam.

KCTitus
04-21-2005, 08:08 AM
Is it also not a fact that during the 1990's KC had one of the best defenses in the NFL?

Mark M
04-21-2005, 08:17 AM
As everyone here was ranting about King Carl and KC's inability to draft few players worth a crap (and rightfully so in many respects), has anyone mentioned the role the coaches and scouting department (namely Lynn Stiles) play in the failure?

I'm not a big fan of Carl, but the Chiefs inability to draft worth a crap is an organization-wide phenomenon, not just the fault of one guy. Everyone at One Arrowhead Drive is responsible.

MM
~~:sulk:

htismaqe
04-21-2005, 09:11 AM
Kietzman was on fire today! I usually can't stand the guy, but apparently bashing Carl is his strong suit.

Unbelievably good radio!

Bashing Carl Peterson is like taking candy from a baby. A trained monkey could find THOUSANDS of things to criticise him for.

Bashing Carl isn't Keitzman's strong suit, it's just so incredibly easy that it seems like it. Keitzman's strong suit is blacking out in casinos and bitching about his 8-iron approach shots.

KChiefs1
04-21-2005, 09:26 AM
Keitzman's strong suit is blacking out in casinos and bitching about his 8-iron approach shots.

Is there anything worse than listening to him & Jack Harry talk about their golf games? :shake:

Messier
04-21-2005, 09:28 AM
Number of Pro Bowlers drafted '89-'04 in afc west

Oakland-8

Chargers-7

Denver-11

Chiefs-10

shaneo69
04-21-2005, 09:29 AM
Number of Pro Bowlers drafted '89-'04 in afc west

Oakland-8

Chargers-7

Denver-11

Chiefs-10


That proves it. Carl is doing a hell of a job.

the Talking Can
04-21-2005, 09:29 AM
Number of Pro Bowlers drafted '89-'04 in afc west

Oakland-8

Chargers-7

Denver-11

Chiefs-10

hey, Carl, what's up?

keg in kc
04-21-2005, 09:30 AM
I'd be interested in seeing that list from '98 or '99 to the present. As far as I recall, we've drafted just two pro bowlers since '98, and both of those are special teamers (Stills and Hall).

Messier
04-21-2005, 09:31 AM
Oh I'm sorry I thought we were basing an argument on number of pro bowlers drafted.

shaneo69
04-21-2005, 09:32 AM
Oh I'm sorry I thought we were basing an argument on number of pro bowlers drafted.

The 90's are over.

the Talking Can
04-21-2005, 09:32 AM
Oh I'm sorry I thought we were basing an argument on number of pro bowlers drafted.

tell me, Carl, what's it like to clean Lamar's bedpans?

Mark M
04-21-2005, 09:33 AM
tell me, Carl, what's it like to clean Lamar's bedpans?

Cleaning bedpans?

I would think the taste of Lamar's penis would be more accurate.

MM
~~:eek:

Messier
04-21-2005, 09:35 AM
What's it like to hate the team you're a "fan" of?

Mark M
04-21-2005, 09:37 AM
What's it like to hate the team you're a "fan" of?

Hate the team? No.

Hate the GM and the entire scouting deparment? Yes.

Of course, I'm a season ticket holder, so according to Carl I am a true fan.

:rolleyes:

Sorry if facts confuse you, but the FACT is Carl and Co. have drafted as many players that helped KC get to the Super Bowl as I have.

MM
~~:shake:

keg in kc
04-21-2005, 09:38 AM
What's it like to hate the team you're a "fan" of?Congratulations. That's the stupidest f*cking thing I've heard all week. Which is really saying something. You faced some stiff competition.

I don't count, though, I'm not a true fan.

siberian khatru
04-21-2005, 09:50 AM
Number of Pro Bowlers drafted '89-'04 in afc west

Oakland-8

Chargers-7

Denver-11

Chiefs-10

Can I see the ring you get for that?

Number of Super Bowl appearances by AFC West teams 89-04:

Denver - 3
San Diego - 1
Oakland - 1
Chiefs - ZERO

Messier
04-21-2005, 09:52 AM
Oh I don't really like Carl. I think he's a stuffed shirt who's full of himself, I don't think he's evil or trying to ruin the team. I really wish we would have gone to and won a superbowl in the last 15 years, I really do. I hope for the best every year, I don't expect things to always work, but I feel rotten knowing that people like Taco John really don't have to argue with people here anymore. No one makes arguments for the team anymore.

Baby Lee
04-21-2005, 10:13 AM
I feel rotten knowing that people like Taco John really don't have to argue with people here anymore. No one makes arguments for the team anymore.
I was thinking the exact same thing the other day, only instead of 'supporting the Chiefs,' it was '8-track tapes.'

RINGLEADER
04-21-2005, 10:16 AM
Until Keitzman produces stats of what other NFL teams have done (offensively and defensively) in the same time span, then I really could care less.

How many Pro Bowl D players have the Cardinals drafted, etc....

And when did the "Pro Bowl" become the definition of a quality football player?


So true. Trent Green should have been in the pro-bowl last year and wasn't...basically because of the crappy defense. I figure there are a lot of teams with a lot of talent that goes unrecognized in the pro-bowl because of a similar problem.

But Carl does suck in the draft.

KCTitus
04-21-2005, 10:20 AM
Well, the Chiefs didnt 'draft' Green, so I dont think it counts for this exercise.

HemiEd
04-21-2005, 11:28 AM
I feel rotten knowing that people like Taco John really don't have to argue with people here anymore. No one makes arguments for the team anymore.

I would disagree with this statement.

Dr. Van Halen
04-21-2005, 11:30 AM
Number of Pro Bowlers drafted '89-'04 in afc west

Oakland-8

Chargers-7

Denver-11

Chiefs-10

Ding! Ding!

Rep.

Thus ends the Carl can't draft mantra. See, if Carl can't draft at all, like many of you contend, then why do we have an average/above average number of pro-bowlers produced by the draft? This research would be even more complete if done for the entire league, which would admittedly be a huge pain in the arse.

The Chiefs are AVERAGE at drafting. Not great. Not awful. AVERAGE. Do some f*cking research, like this guy did! Jeebus H. Christo!

Seriously, if any of you f*ckheads would actually bother doing two minutes worth of research before typing in your daily "I hate Carl" diary entry, it would be a miracle.

ps -- Just to let you know, I'm not Carl Peterson, I don't have sexual relations with Carl Peterson, I'm not overly fond of Carl Peterson, I'm often disappointed in the moves Carl Peterson makes and/or the things Carl Peterson says.

HemiEd
04-21-2005, 11:36 AM
Well, the Chiefs didnt 'draft' Green, so I dont think it counts for this exercise.


Should it count for San Diego?

Bwana
04-21-2005, 11:42 AM
ps -- Just to let you know, I'm not Carl Peterson, I don't have sexual relations with Carl Peterson, I'm not overly fond of Carl Peterson, I'm often disappointed in the moves Carl Peterson makes and/or the things Carl Peterson says. [/size]


Packfan?? :hmmm:

keg in kc
04-21-2005, 12:10 PM
Seriously, if any of you f*ckheads would actually bother doing two minutes worth of research before typing in your daily "I hate Carl" diary entry, it would be a miracle.Some of us f*ckheads have done research. A lot of research, in fact. And the team has been where we are since 1998 - that's barely above .500 total with two winning seasons and one playoff appearance - specifically because we have been not average, not even slightly below average, but...horrible...drafting in that time.

Name for me the last successful draft the Chiefs had, where several players contributed to the team in a meaningful way for a number of years.

The answer: 1996.

As for the 'Pro Bowl argument', perhaps you should provide some more information there. For instance, is Donnie Edwards on that list? Because while we did draft him and he was once a pro bowl alternate, it wasn't as a Chief. And our last two drafted pro bowlers? Gary Stills in '99 and Dante Hall in '00. Both special teamers. We haven't drafted a pro bowl position player since Tony Gonzalez in '97. The last pro bowl defender drafted? Jerome Woods in '96.

So, in short, it's been 8 and 9 years since we drafted pro bowlers on offense and defense, respectively, and 5 years since we drafted our last pro bowl player of any kind.

Is that acceptable?

J Diddy
04-21-2005, 12:13 PM
Some of us f*ckheads have done research. A lot of research, in fact. And the team has been where we are since 1998 - that's barely above .500 total with two winning seasons and one playoff appearance - specifically because we have been not average, not even slightly below average, but...horrible...drafting in that time.

Name for me the last successful draft the Chiefs had, where several players contributed to the team in a meaningful way for a number of years.

The answer: 1996.

As for the 'Pro Bowl argument', perhaps you should provide some more information there. For instance, is Donnie Edwards on that list? Because while we did draft him and he was once a pro bowl alternate, it wasn't as a Chief. And our last two drafted pro bowlers? Gary Stills in '99 and Dante Hall in '00. Both special teamers. We haven't drafted a pro bowl position player since Tony Gonzalez in '97. The last pro bowl defender drafted? Jerome Woods in '96.

So, in short, it's been 8 and 9 years since we drafted pro bowlers on offense and defense, respectively, and 5 years since we drafted our last pro bowl player of any kind.

Is that acceptable?


Well put.

You f*ckhead.
:)

htismaqe
04-21-2005, 12:18 PM
Ding! Ding!

Rep.

Thus ends the Carl can't draft mantra. See, if Carl can't draft at all, like many of you contend, then why do we have an average/above average number of pro-bowlers produced by the draft? This research would be even more complete if done for the entire league, which would admittedly be a huge pain in the arse.

The Chiefs are AVERAGE at drafting. Not great. Not awful. AVERAGE. Do some f*cking research, like this guy did! Jeebus H. Christo!

Seriously, if any of you f*ckheads would actually bother doing two minutes worth of research before typing in your daily "I hate Carl" diary entry, it would be a miracle.

ps -- Just to let you know, I'm not Carl Peterson, I don't have sexual relations with Carl Peterson, I'm not overly fond of Carl Peterson, I'm often disappointed in the moves Carl Peterson makes and/or the things Carl Peterson says.

Hey, I'm the first to jump in and argue with the bashers when it's warranted and they're wrong.

But they're NOT wrong this time.

And you didn't do your case any favors by stooping to that kind of idiocy.

Dr. Van Halen
04-21-2005, 12:43 PM
Hey, I'm the first to jump in and argue with the bashers when it's warranted and they're wrong.

But they're NOT wrong this time.

And you didn't do your case any favors by stooping to that kind of idiocy.

I call BS!

I am tired of people on here doing ZERO research before posting.

Then you have guys like keg in kc who post research that is filled with strange partial facts. For example, we are discussing Carl's ability to draft. But to attack Carl's ability to draft, keg in kc only goes back to 1998? Why that year? Possibly out of laziness. Possibly out of an incomplete set of information available to him. But most likely because it skews the data to his advantage.

Messier posted complete facts. We are discussing Carl's success as a drafter (seemingly defined in the first post by pro-bowl appearances), and Messier did research and posted Carl's success compared to other teams in the division.

The result? The Chiefs are AVERAGE at the draft. Carl isn't the worst drafter in NFL history (as I heard someone say on the radio the other day). Carl is AVERAGE.

My frustration is furthered by KK's rant, which also grossly skewed the "facts" by only including partial information on the Chiefs' draft record (which, again, is AVERAGE), fueled by his personal dislike for CP. (You might recall CP's bizarre and unprofessional attempt to get KK fired from channel 4.)(only part of a string of CP's unprofessional and inexcusable dealings with the media).

Too often I see the same garbage here that I hear from KK. We should all be critical listeners and attempt to discern for ourselves the truth to anything that CP, KK, or their counterparts say. The Internet gives us the tools to do this. Few of us do.

htismaqe
04-21-2005, 12:47 PM
I call BS!

I am tired of people on here doing ZERO research before posting.

Then you have guys like keg in kc who post research that is filled with strange partial facts. For example, we are discussing Carl's ability to draft. But to attack Carl's ability to draft, keg in kc only goes back to 1998? Why that year? Possibly out of laziness. Possibly out of an incomplete set of information available to him. But most likely because it skews the data to his advantage.

Messier posted complete facts. We are discussing Carl's success as a drafter (seemingly defined in the first post by pro-bowl appearances), and Messier did research and posted Carl's success compared to other teams in the division.

The result? The Chiefs are AVERAGE at the draft. Carl isn't the worst drafter in NFL history (as I heard someone say on the radio the other day). Carl is AVERAGE.

My frustration is furthered by KK's rant, which also grossly skewed the "facts" by only including partial information on the Chiefs' draft record (which, again, is AVERAGE), fueled by his personal dislike for CP. (You might recall CP's bizarre and unprofessional attempt to get KK fired from channel 4.)(only part of a string of CP's unprofessional and inexcusable dealings with the media).

Too often I see the same garbage here that I hear from KK. We should all be critical listeners and attempt to discern for ourselves the truth to anything that CP, KK, or their counterparts say. The Internet gives us the tools to do this. Few of us do.

That's somewhat better...you at least avoided calling everyone ****heads.

And if you were to read, you'd know why keg went back to 1998. That's when Marty left.

keg in kc
04-21-2005, 01:27 PM
Then you have guys like keg in kc who post research that is filled with strange partial facts. For example, we are discussing Carl's ability to draft. But to attack Carl's ability to draft, keg in kc only goes back to 1998? Why that year? Possibly out of laziness. Possibly out of an incomplete set of information available to him. But most likely because it skews the data to his advantage.Contrary to Parker's supposition that it has something to do with Marty, I go back to 1998 because that's about the time that I moved here and began to follow the Chiefs closely. I have all the information from prior drafts available, as well, but I choose to refrain from discussing anything I didn't experience personally. I think that's the right way to go about things.

Beyond that, I happen to think it's a more than substantial slice of time to discuss. How much further do we need to go back? How long are the Chiefs, as an organization, and Carl Peterson, in specific, going to be granted a pass for their performance in the early nineties? How long are we supposed to accept mediocrity? Because that's exactly what we've had for 7 years. And then I would go on to argue that recent history is much more important than more distant results. Should we all be happy with losing indefinitely because we won a Superbowl 35 years ago? I say ‘no’; I fall into the "what have you done for me lately" school.

And the answer to that question – what have you done for me lately? - is this:

Between 1998 and 2002 (I will not discuss 2003 and 2004 because I won’t judge a class or individual player until it’s had three years to prove itself) we drafted 35 players. 28 of those players are no longer on the team. Of the 7 remaining draftees, 3 are starters (Fujita, Sims and Warfield) and 4 are backups and special teamers (Bartee, Hall, Harts and Stills).

That's a 20% success rate, which is precisely why we’ve had to attempt to construct this team through free agency (look at our starting offense if you question that fact): we have, to this point, failed to fill the roster with our own draft picks. When I say that, I am not, specifically, attacking Carl's ability to draft. I don't have to. I’m simply providing facts which speak for themselves.Messier posted complete facts. We are discussing Carl's success as a drafter (seemingly defined in the first post by pro-bowl appearances), and Messier did research and posted Carl's success compared to other teams in the division.messier did not post “complete facts”. He posted a few raw numbers without any names and didn’t list the criteria used to compile his list. So what he posted is, in essence, meaningless until he provides more information.My frustration is furthered by KK's rant, which also grossly skewed the "facts" by only including partial information on the Chiefs' draft record (which, again, is AVERAGE), fueled by his personal dislike for CP.And how are you doing anything differently? As I see it, you’ve decided that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Chiefs draft record, or recent draft record if you’d prefer, since I only go back to 1998, is somehow “average”. You’re not being objective, you’ve settled on your point and you’re choosing information to fit your agenda, faulty statements like messier’s vague Pro Bowl comment.

Chiefnj
04-21-2005, 01:32 PM
I've got to say that I think Marty had a fair amount of input on those early draft successes. He's gone on to have good drafts with other teams as well. Rufus will disagree, but I think Marty has a pretty decent eye for defensive talent.

Coogs
04-21-2005, 01:38 PM
I have not read this whole thread, and am not going to. But I think our team mirrors Tampa Bay to a degree. Tampa Bay gave up a boat load of picks to get Gruden, and is now paying the price due to not having top draft picks for a couple of years. But at least they did win the SB for their efforts.

We, on the other hand, gave up a 2nd and a 3rd for DV. And don't get me wrong, I like DV. But I think our overall talent is hurting a bit because of those draft picks.

Mark M
04-21-2005, 01:55 PM
Personally, I don't give a rat's flea infested ass how many players go to the Pro Bowl.

The only fact that matters is this:

Carl Peterson has as many Super Bowl rings as I do.

MM
~~:shake:

Bowser
04-21-2005, 01:58 PM
Personally, I don't give a rat's flea infested ass how many players go to the Pro Bowl.

The only fact that matters is this:

Carl Peterson has as many Super Bowl rings as I do.

MM
~~:shake:


I bet you could find one on ebay.

htismaqe
04-21-2005, 02:39 PM
I've got to say that I think Marty had a fair amount of input on those early draft successes. He's gone on to have good drafts with other teams as well. Rufus will disagree, but I think Marty has a pretty decent eye for defensive talent.

Why would I disagree?

milkman
04-21-2005, 08:23 PM
I've got to say that I think Marty had a fair amount of input on those early draft successes. He's gone on to have good drafts with other teams as well. Rufus will disagree, but I think Marty has a pretty decent eye for defensive talent.

I think it's pretty well known that I'm a diehard Marty basher, and even I wouldn't disagree with you regarding Marty's eye for defensive talent.

Marty has other issues that have him on his way to winning more games without an appearence in a League Championship (not to be confused with Conference Championship) than any other coach in NFL history.

Logical
04-21-2005, 08:33 PM
I have not read this whole thread, and am not going to. But I think our team mirrors Tampa Bay to a degree. Tampa Bay gave up a boat load of picks to get Gruden, and is now paying the price due to not having top draft picks for a couple of years. But at least they did win the SB for their efforts.

We, on the other hand, gave up a 2nd and a 3rd for DV. And don't get me wrong, I like DV. But I think our overall talent is hurting a bit because of those draft picks.Well I am sitting here holding the following cards Wilson, Fox, Mitchell, Battle, Sims, Freeman, Easy, Downing and Minnis. Now that I have played my hand do you really feel our talent is hurting because we lost those two draft picks?

I would have a really hard time saying yes to that question.

htismaqe
04-21-2005, 08:50 PM
I think it's pretty well known that I'm a diehard Marty basher, and even I wouldn't disagree with you regarding Marty's eye for defensive talent.

Marty has other issues that have him on his way to winning more games without an appearence in a League Championship (not to be confused with Conference Championship) than any other coach in NFL history.

Exactly.

Inspector
04-21-2005, 09:04 PM
Carl sucks so much that he creates his own drafts....

Manila-Chief
04-22-2005, 12:35 AM
To clarify again, I believe Peterson has struggled at GM. However, placing 100% of the blame on Peterson isn't fair IMHO. Peterson isn't the only one in the war room on Saturday and Sunday.

Why should he not get the blame. He is responsible for hiring those in the war room, and he is the one who makes the final decision. i.e. the LJ pick and DV was clearly upset over it.