PDA

View Full Version : Guns situation for 06'?


Big Chief Homer
11-14-2005, 06:08 PM
Anyone now off hand what guns situation is for next season?How much time is left on his contract.

With the possibility of Vermiel retiring and a new coach coming in Im hoping Gun sticks around.Will he stay if AS gets the job?will he go if they bring in someone else?

I would hate to see the system changed again when it seems they finally have a FEW pieces of the puzzle in place.(ie Allen,DJ,Mitchell,Hall if he ever stays healthy)


BCH

Chieficus
11-14-2005, 06:59 PM
Anyone now off hand what guns situation is for next season?How much time is left on his contract.

According to this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1711518 , he signed a two year contract when he came here. So, what he does is probably going to depend upon several factors.

In my opinion...

I think he's done a great job of turning around the run D. I think the pass D still needs some tweaking though. These past two weeks may have offered a glimmer of hope in that department... but we'll see if that trend continues.

If the D continues to improve as the year progresses, I'd like to see him stick around.

Then again, it could be time for some fresh meat all around...

Big Chief Homer
11-14-2005, 07:08 PM
thanks for the info on his contract.While i agree it might be time for a complete overhaul.Id like to see if Gun can bring back the D of old.With a few more draft picks,a F/A or 2 and somemore time under a few of the current players belts.He just might be able to pull it off.IMO he needs to be able to pick his own coaches and players and with DV gone,hopefully HIS coachs and players like Mccleon go with him.

dtebbe
11-14-2005, 07:10 PM
First.... :Bartee: Then.... :whackit:

DT

Logical
11-14-2005, 07:12 PM
I sincerely hope he is gone, moreso than anyone on the staff except DV. Complete failure IMO.

Claynus
11-14-2005, 07:13 PM
I sincerely hope he is gone, moreso than anyone on the staff except DV. Complete failure IMO.

You're nuts. Are you blind to the progress this defense is making under Gunther?

Logical
11-14-2005, 07:18 PM
You're nuts. Are you blind to the progress this defense is making under Gunther?
Progress is due to influx of talent, not Gun. Gun failed as horribly with the same talent as GRob. Gun's schemes are holding this pass defense back. I will only give him credit for a slightly improved run defense and I think that has more to do with offenses taking what they are being given which is easy pass offense. After a year and a half we are still 29th in the league in defense. Pitiful.

Claynus
11-14-2005, 07:21 PM
We're 25th. And getting better every week.

If we continue to improve every week until the season is over, I think Gunther should be retained.

Extra Point
11-14-2005, 07:23 PM
Get Fisher, and it's a non-issue.

Logical
11-14-2005, 07:23 PM
We're 25th. And getting better every week.

If we continue to improve every week until the season is over, I think Gunther should be retained.Oh yippee we are 25th after playing one of the weakest offenses in the NFL.

Claynus
11-14-2005, 07:25 PM
Oh yippee we are 25th after playing one of the weakest offenses in the NFL.

And we dominated their ass. We dominated the Raiders last week too for the most part.

We are improving. At this point, it COULD be a mirage. If that rings true and we regress against New England and Denver (two good offensive teams), I will throw Gunther from the train.

Big Chief Homer
11-14-2005, 07:28 PM
Get Fisher, and it's a non-issue.

:clap: :clap: :thumb:

Claynus
11-14-2005, 07:29 PM
Vlad, would you rather have a defense like Denver's?

Logical
11-14-2005, 07:30 PM
And we dominated their ass. We dominated the Raiders last week too for the most part.

We are improving. At this point, it COULD be a mirage. If that rings true and we regress against New England and Denver (two good offensive teams), I will throw Gunther from the train.Fair enough

Logical
11-14-2005, 07:31 PM
Vlad, would you rather have a defense like Denver's?That is a hard call, I really think their performance is more smoke an mirrors. Give me a Bears or Philly style defense, thanks.

Claynus
11-14-2005, 07:32 PM
That is a hard call, I really think there performance is more smoke an mirrors. Give me a Bears or Philly style defense, thanks.

OK I will admit it, I tried to trap you there. Denver's defense is ranked 23rd. ROFL

However you seem to have dug your own hole. Philly is ranked 27th. ROFL

Frankie
11-14-2005, 07:32 PM
Anyone now off hand what guns situation is for next season?How much time is left on his contract.

With the possibility of Vermiel retiring and a new coach coming in Im hoping Gun sticks around.Will he stay if AS gets the job?will he go if they bring in someone else?

I would hate to see the system changed again when it seems they finally have a FEW pieces of the puzzle in place.(ie Allen,DJ,Mitchell,Hall if he ever stays healthy)


BCH

I'm also one of the few on this bb who also does not want the system changed. Only improved upon. By few, I mean the silent majority. ;) I've been wanting Saunders as our next HC with Gun retained, hoping that Saunders would have less problem than DV allowing Gun to overhaul the defensive staff.

Logical
11-14-2005, 07:35 PM
OK I will admit it, I tried to trap you there. Denver's defense is ranked 23rd. ROFL

However you seem to have dug your own hole. Philly is ranked 27th. ROFLI admit I am shocked, watching Philly you would never guess that.

Claynus
11-14-2005, 07:37 PM
I admit I am shocked, watching Philly you would never guess that.

The real improvement is scoring defense.

We gave up 27.2 points per game last year.

We're giving up 21.9 points per game this year.

Logical
11-14-2005, 07:39 PM
The real improvement is scoring defense.

We gave up 27.2 points per game last year.

We're giving up 21.9 points per game this year.Yup we have gone from incredibly horrible to merely very bad.

Frankie
11-14-2005, 07:50 PM
Progress is due to influx of talent, not Gun. Gun failed as horribly with the same talent as GRob. Gun's schemes are holding this pass defense back. I will only give him credit for a slightly improved run defense and I think that has more to do with offenses taking what they are being given which is easy pass offense. After a year and a half we are still 29th in the league in defense. Pitiful.
There was no influx of talent in the defensive coaching staff. Give Gun some due credit.

Logical
11-14-2005, 07:52 PM
There was no influx of talent in the defensive coaching staff. Give Gun some due credit.IMO that is Gun's fault as well. He had the leverage to get the coaching staff he wanted and did not exercise it. He had the chance to tell Carl and DV there was not sufficient talent when he came here and he did not exercise it. Nope I am not giving Gun any slack.

Fruit Ninja
11-14-2005, 08:20 PM
Gun just wanted back in KC. he loves it here. He didnt care who his Coaches were. He considers KC his home. He is doing a hell of a job this year. This Defense is going to get better and better. When Sims come back, watch the **** out.

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 07:56 AM
Get Fisher, and it's a non-issue.

Yep. Just go 8-8 every year and stop worrying about the playoffs. Fisher will solve everything.

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 07:57 AM
There was no influx of talent in the defensive coaching staff. Give Gun some due credit.

Give him some credit for what? Coming back here like the good little foot-shuffling porter he was and asking for NOTHING? Having no spine whatsoever?

The simple fact is that Gunther came back here just like he left -- with his tail between Carl Peterson's legs. Gunther could have said "I get MY coaches, or I don't sign". Instead, he gave in to everything Vermeil told him to give in to.

**** Gunther.

Brock
11-15-2005, 07:58 AM
IMO that is Gun's fault as well. He had the leverage to get the coaching staff he wanted and did not exercise it.

I doubt that's true.

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 08:26 AM
I doubt that's true.

Gunther was widely recognized as "ready" to be a DC again, somewhere in the league.

Whether or not he had the power to bring in his own coaches is 100% irrelevant.

He DID have the power to say "I get MY coaches, or I'm not going to work for you" and instead he capitulated...

Brock
11-15-2005, 08:30 AM
Gunther was widely recognized as "ready" to be a DC again, somewhere in the league.

Whether or not he had the power to bring in his own coaches is 100% irrelevant.

He DID have the power to say "I get MY coaches, or I'm not going to work for you" and instead he capitulated...

I doubt Gunther would have returned to KC if he had any other options. Unless he has some kind of self-esteem issue.....

HC_Chief
11-15-2005, 08:31 AM
Hopefully his situation will be the same as Vermeil's: the f*ck outta KC :grr:

Mr. Kotter
11-15-2005, 08:33 AM
If DV is gone, Gun will be also.

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 08:36 AM
I doubt Gunther would have returned to KC if he had any other options. Unless he has some kind of self-esteem issue.....

I thought that was pretty obvious from the many interviews he did while in Tennessee...

He had other opportunities:

http://www.ajc.com/falcons/content/sports/falcons/0104/13falcons.html

the Talking Can
11-15-2005, 08:37 AM
I thought our D looked pretty good against the Bills.

Our run D is better and 2 of our 3 LBs are better. I still don't understand our pass D.

Given our shitty drafts and shitty D coaches I could live with Gun staying on as DC (only as DC!) assuming ALL the other coaches are washed away.

I think Gunther knows he is a DC for the rest of his life and not a HC.

Brock
11-15-2005, 08:38 AM
I thought that was pretty obvious from the many interviews he did while in Tennessee...

He had other opportunities:

http://www.ajc.com/falcons/content/sports/falcons/0104/13falcons.html

I'm not saying he can't get an interview. In any case, the guy was sort of crazy to come back, IMO.

I simply haven't seen any kind of explanation for why Gunther couldn't have hired his own assistants, other than he had no option.

Mr. Kotter
11-15-2005, 08:39 AM
I thought our D looked pretty good against the Bills.

Our run D is better and 2 of our 3 LBs are better. I still don't understand our pass D.

Given our shitty drafts and shitty D coaches I could live with Gun staying on as DC (only as DC!) assuming ALL the other coaches are washed away.

I think Gunther knows he is a DC for the rest of his life and not a HC.

Holy crap... :spock:

I agree.

the Talking Can
11-15-2005, 08:42 AM
Holy crap... :spock:

I agree.

I didn't want Gun. But he's here.

I am fine with getting rid of everybody. But I can also see him being held over, at the new coaches ok.

Saggysack
11-15-2005, 08:42 AM
Get Fisher, and it's a non-issue.

What's a non-issue?

What is this love affair of Jeff Fisher? What exactly has he done to merit being a great coach? Because he went to a SB? Bah.. so did Barry Switzer, Bill Callahan, Bobby Ross, Jim Fassel, Sam Wyche and Mike Martz.

I wish for once some would answer what makes Jeff Fisher a great coach.

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 08:43 AM
I'm not saying he can't get an interview. In any case, the guy was sort of crazy to come back, IMO.

I simply haven't seen any kind of explanation for why Gunther couldn't have hired his own assistants, other than he had no option.

That's it in a nutshell.

The guy was never given a proper exit interview and found out he was being fired by reading it on the Internet. Then he was asked to come back and fix the defense, despite getting pretty much zero control over any of the decision-making.

He HAS to be crazy. Nobody in their right mind would go through what he's gone through with this team...

Saggysack
11-15-2005, 08:48 AM
I wanted Gun coming back to KC. Unfortunately it hasn't worked out the way I had hoped. In 2yrs I expected more improvement than what has been shown. I expected better results.

I'm sorry to say that it may be time to completely clean house. Let a new HC choose his DC. If Gun happens to be his choice, then great. If not, so be it and wish him the best of luck.

Mr. Kotter
11-15-2005, 08:50 AM
I didn't want Gun. But he's here.

I am fine with getting rid of everybody. But I can also see him being held over, at the new coaches ok.

I can't see Gun being retained as DC under a new coach, unless no one else is available. I'd love to have him on staff as LB coach, but that would be a further blow to his all-ready fragile ego, I suspect.

The one exception would be IF they brought in a HC with a strong defensive background, and kept Saunders too (which I don't see) or hired some other real hotshot OC. Say, LeBeau or Fisher as HC, and Saunders stays on.

wilas101
11-15-2005, 09:47 AM
I've never had any problems with Gun as the DC. He strikes me as a hard assed type coach which I think is good for a defense.

I have to wonder if the rate of progress isn't being slowed by Vermeil. I wouldn't be surprised to see DV telling Gun "now, don't be too hard on Dexter, he's trying hard you know and he's kind of upset today because he watched a show on Lifetime about a woman who lost her children when her estranged husband took them and ran off with their house keeper. Thats emotional stuff you know, Gunther, and we have to let our players know its ok to cry."

I say screw that..... I thought the most promising thing about the Buffalo game was the fact that they got into a fight. Showing signs of life at last perhaps.

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 09:59 AM
I've never had any problems with Gun as the DC. He strikes me as a hard assed type coach which I think is good for a defense.

I have to wonder if the rate of progress isn't being slowed by Vermeil. I wouldn't be surprised to see DV telling Gun "now, don't be too hard on Dexter, he's trying hard you know and he's kind of upset today because he watched a show on Lifetime about a woman who lost her children when her estranged husband took them and ran off with their house keeper. Thats emotional stuff you know, Gunther, and we have to let our players know its ok to cry."

I say screw that..... I thought the most promising thing about the Buffalo game was the fact that they got into a fight. Showing signs of life at last perhaps.

So Gunther is a hard-assed coach that takes it easy on his players because the head coach tells him to?

Get some boots and a shovel...

shaneo69
11-15-2005, 10:10 AM
He HAS to be crazy. Nobody in their right mind would go through what he's gone through with this team...

Is it any worse than what we as Chiefs fans have gone through?

My take on it is that Gunther appreciates what Lamar and Carl have done for him, and as a result, he lives and dies with the Chiefs like we do.

After being demoted from DC by Al Davis, Peterson rescued him, in Gun's words. He was hired as LB or D-line coach here, but then was promoted to DC right away when Dave Adolph jumped to the Chargers.

Then Peterson gave him a shot as HC. I think he realizes it didn't work out. But I'm glad he's back, and I like the progress the D is making.

I am annoyed that he didn't push for bringing in outside FA's last year or his own coaches, but as you have mentioned, Carl sets up his budget to only be able to make free agent splashes every other year. And I think if any of us were offered a job with the Chiefs, we'd probably jump at it too, without making any kind of demands that might get the offer recinded.

jcl-kcfan2
11-15-2005, 10:10 AM
Yup we have gone from incredibly horrible to merely very bad.

Our offense has gone from THE BEST to only scoring 3points against Buffalo!!!

Give the defense a little time on the sidelines and they would look even better.

David.
11-15-2005, 10:12 AM
The one thing that really, really, REALLY disappoints me about the defense this year, is how the corners still play fricking 15 yards back.

Nothing I hate more then watching the qb dump the ball off to receiver who gets 7 easy yards, untouched.

I thought we got rid of Grob :/

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 10:23 AM
Is it any worse than what we as Chiefs fans have gone through?

My take on it is that Gunther appreciates what Lamar and Carl have done for him, and as a result, he lives and dies with the Chiefs like we do.

After being demoted from DC by Al Davis, Peterson rescued him, in Gun's words. He was hired as LB or D-line coach here, but then was promoted to DC right away when Dave Adolph jumped to the Chargers.

Then Peterson gave him a shot as HC. I think he realizes it didn't work out. But I'm glad he's back, and I like the progress the D is making.

I am annoyed that he didn't push for bringing in outside FA's last year or his own coaches, but as you have mentioned, Carl sets up his budget to only be able to make free agent splashes every other year. And I think if any of us were offered a job with the Chiefs, we'd probably jump at it too, without making any kind of demands that might get the offer recinded.

That's why I said "right mind".

Gunther obviously has far too much emotional attachment to KC, just like any fan.

Passion in moderation is a good thing. Too much clouds one's judgment and impairs their ability to do their job...

Claynus
11-15-2005, 10:40 AM
He HAS to be crazy. Nobody in their right mind would go through what he's gone through with this team...

Unconditional love. ROFL

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 11:15 AM
Unconditional love. ROFL

Unconditional love = crazy

:D

Mr. Laz
11-15-2005, 11:23 AM
If we continue to improve every week until the season is over
big IF ...

but i'll agree, IF we continue to improve throughout the season then and only then should gunther be retained.

so far i've seen nothing extraordinary about what the defense has done.


They stripped the entire scheme down to the most basic defense possible and commit heavily to stopping the run.


this simplistic defense will prolly always struggle against a quality quarterback.

BigMeatballDave
11-15-2005, 11:25 AM
I'd rather have a complete coaching overhaul. If I had to pick 1 coach to stay, I guess it would be Gun...

Mr. Laz
11-15-2005, 11:26 AM
I'd rather have a complete coaching overhaul. If I had to pick 1 coach to stay, I guess it would be Gun...
mike solari
terry shea

BigMeatballDave
11-15-2005, 11:31 AM
If we had 2003's 'O', we'd be 9-0... :p

Rausch
11-15-2005, 11:33 AM
Yup we have gone from incredibly horrible to merely very bad.

Every year we have gotten better under Gun. He has turned the defense around.

Gradual improvement may not be fast enough for you, but a 180 has been made. Instead of getting worse every year (under GROB the Emascualtor) we are getting better every year.

This offense did not become top 5 overnight, I have no ****ing idea why people think a defense will...

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 11:35 AM
mike solari
terry shea

Personally, I'm about ready to put Solari in Gunther's corner. He looks pretty good with HoF talent on the line -- looks pretty average without it.

Rausch
11-15-2005, 11:36 AM
Personally, I'm about ready to put Solari in Gunther's corner. He looks pretty good with HoF talent on the line -- looks pretty average without it.

We might want to give him credit for developing some of that.

When Watters and Weigman first came here they were anything but HOF offensive lineman.

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 11:37 AM
This offense did not become top 5 overnight, I have no ****ing idea why people think a defense will...

Actually, yes it did.

In Vermeil's first year they were 16th in points. They were 1st in both 2002 and 2003 (2nd in 2004).

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 11:38 AM
We might want to give him credit for developing some of that.

When Watters and Weigman first came here they were anything but HOF offensive lineman.

I'll give him credit for Waters. Wiegmann was playing Pro Bowl-caliber ball in Chicago...

BigMeatballDave
11-15-2005, 11:39 AM
If we were scoring 30+ points a game, this would be a non-issue...

Rausch
11-15-2005, 11:40 AM
Actually, yes it did.

In Vermeil's first year they were 16th in points.

And the first five games of that year we sucked arse. Only after Holmes was discovered and properly used did we really turn the corner.

And we still had way too many INT's and red zone failures the 1st two years.

They were 1st in both 2002 and 2003 (2nd in 2004).

Right, but this offense wasn't complete until the additions of Roaf and Kennison.

Claynus
11-15-2005, 11:43 AM
Right, but this offense wasn't complete until the additions of Roaf and Kennison.

Kennison came late 2001. Roaf was here in 2002.

Mr. Laz
11-15-2005, 11:43 AM
If we had 2003's 'O', we'd be 9-0... :p

2003 offense and the 1969 defense


:clap:

Mr. Kotter
11-15-2005, 11:46 AM
2003 offense and the 1969 defense


:clap:

69 defense.....heh.

Mr. Laz
11-15-2005, 11:46 AM
Personally, I'm about ready to put Solari in Gunther's corner. He looks pretty good with HoF talent on the line -- looks pretty average without it.
true ... but i just figured that he had a big hand in developing that HOF talent.

seems like the one place we can develop players with any kind of consistency has been the offensive line.

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 11:50 AM
And the first five games of that year we sucked arse. Only after Holmes was discovered and properly used did we really turn the corner.

And we still had way too many INT's and red zone failures the 1st two years.



Right, but this offense wasn't complete until the additions of Roaf and Kennison.

My point was that you compared the progression of the offense to the progression of the defense.

From year 1 to year 2, this offense acquired Willie Roaf and instantly went from lower half to "the best".

This defense got Patrick Surtain, DJ, and two former DRoY in Washington and Bell and the defense has improved from worst to not-quite-worst.

Gunther isn't getting it done.

Rausch
11-15-2005, 11:53 AM
Kennison came late 2001. Roaf was here in 2002.

And Green's knee took time to heal allowing him to quit that throwing shit up without being set problem.

As well as finally getting him someone to throw to.

Not to mention our kicking problems.

Same with our defense. We keep adding players and we keep getting better.

Our most talented defender is a rookie. Our sack leader is only in his second year. Our MLB is just now starting to be more production than promise. Our 2nd best corner missed 5 games. Our best corner is in his first year here and has missed games. We have a new SS and our FS is learning to play a new position.

It's not going to be perfect overnight...

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 11:53 AM
true ... but i just figured that he had a big hand in developing that HOF talent.

seems like the one place we can develop players with any kind of consistency has been the offensive line.

Well, the way I see it, Waters was developed under Solari.

Wiegmann and Roaf were good (or great in Roaf's case) linemen before they got here, Shields was great before Solari arrived.

On the flipside, Tait was lackluster. Welbourn has been shuffled around so much he's been ineffective. Bober is bad. And then there's Brett Williams and Jordan Black...OUCH.

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 11:55 AM
It's not going to be perfect overnight...

OK, I'll concede that.

But you can't compare it to the offense, because it DID get "perfect" overnight.

Mr. Laz
11-15-2005, 11:55 AM
Well, the way I see it, Waters was developed under Solari.

Wiegmann and Roaf were good (or great in Roaf's case) linemen before they got here, Shields was great before Solari arrived.

On the flipside, Tait was lackluster. Welbourn has been shuffled around so much he's been ineffective. Bober is bad. And then there's Brett Williams and Jordan Black...OUCH.
how long has solari been here?

Claynus
11-15-2005, 11:55 AM
Our most talented defender is a rookie. Our sack leader is only in his second year. Our MLB is just now starting to be more production than promise. Our 2nd best corner missed 5 games. Our best corner is in his first year here and has missed games. We have a new SS and our FS is learning to play a new position.

It's not going to be perfect overnight...

Exactly.

But still...if we suck against NE and Denver, eff Gunther.

Rausch
11-15-2005, 12:01 PM
OK, I'll concede that.

But you can't compare it to the offense, because it DID get "perfect" overnight.

I wouldn't say perfect, but yes, drastic improvment. Probably was a bad comparison to make.

GROB added shitty players to a shitty scheme and got shitty results. Gun was then given the same shitty players and did just as shitty or slightly less shitty. It's arguable.

Only this year was he allowed to change any of the broken parts. If I were to continue my shitty comparison with the offense this year would be Gun's 2001.

This year we have a good run defense, an effective blitz package, and even banged up a better pass defense. Not good, but better.

Better in run defense, better in sacks, better in pts allowed, better in the ability to make a big play or get a must-have defensive stand.

Not great, but better.

Rausch
11-15-2005, 12:06 PM
Exactly.

But still...if we suck against NE and Denver, eff Gunther.

I'm not worried about our defense, I'm worried about our offense playing smelling like dead fish for 3 quarters.

When you hold a team to 200 total yards, only 14 pts, and get 2 turnovers you should win.

When you add to that you gained 150 yards rushing there is absolutley no way you should lose...

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 12:13 PM
I wouldn't say perfect, but yes, drastic improvment. Probably was a bad comparison to make.

GROB added shitty players to a shitty scheme and got shitty results. Gun was then given the same shitty players and did just as shitty or slightly less shitty. It's arguable.

Only this year was he allowed to change any of the broken parts. If I were to continue my shitty comparison with the offense this year would be Gun's 2001.

This year we have a good run defense, an effective blitz package, and even banged up a better pass defense. Not good, but better.

Better in run defense, better in sacks, better in pts allowed, better in the ability to make a big play or get a must-have defensive stand.

Not great, but better.

Ah, so you're saying:

Green, Holmes, etc. = DJ, Surtain, Bell, etc.

So it stands to reason that we should be able to acquire a defensive Willie Roaf and be the best defense in the league next season? :D

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 12:15 PM
When you add to that you gained 150 yards rushing there is absolutley no way you should lose...

Bingo. Infuriating.

Rausch
11-15-2005, 12:17 PM
Ah, so you're saying:

Green, Holmes, etc. = DJ, Surtain, Bell, etc.

So it stands to reason that we should be able to acquire a defensive Willie Roaf and be the best defense in the league next season? :D

I think DJ might be our Willie Roaf.

It's easy to see that we've added some good players. Allen is a great pass rusher (even if he still needs to round out his game) and DJ is going to be a beast. I think that's why you've seen an improved rushing defense - our front 7 is starting to become very good, but we still need a solid and healhty DT rotation.

I think our secondary is giving up so many yards because we've had 4 different guys start at CB. Surtain has been hurt, Warfield suspended and hurt, Dexter sucking ass and being hurt, Washinton filling in, etc.

We've had injuries at DT, CB, and tackle.

Those are the three worst areas on this team right now, and why we're losing games...

stevieray
11-15-2005, 12:18 PM
ROFL

Claynus
11-15-2005, 12:31 PM
Ah, so you're saying:

Green, Holmes, etc. = DJ, Surtain, Bell, etc.

So it stands to reason that we should be able to acquire a defensive Willie Roaf and be the best defense in the league next season? :D

BRILLIANT!

Claynus
11-15-2005, 12:32 PM
What's most frustrating to me is that we've run the ball and stopped the run all year long.

In the NFL, that should be a formula for success.

I firmly believe that if we dumbed down the passing offense, we'd be better off.

htismaqe
11-15-2005, 12:35 PM
What's most frustrating to me is that we've run the ball and stopped the run all year long.

In the NFL, that should be a formula for success.

I firmly believe that if we dumbed down the passing offense, we'd be better off.

Precisely.

Rausch
11-15-2005, 12:36 PM
What's most frustrating to me is that we've run the ball and stopped the run all year long.

In the NFL, that should be a formula for success.

I firmly believe that if we dumbed down the passing offense, we'd be better off.

Running more and using more play action would also help our Defense.

Not only stay fresh, but the fewer opportunities our defense has do defend the long ball the better...

Claynus
11-15-2005, 12:38 PM
Running more and using more play action would also help our Defense.

Not only stay fresh, but the fewer opportunities our defense has do defend the long ball the better...

There's that too.

Imagine how well our D would be playing if the offense wasn't spending entire quarters in neutral.

Frankie
11-15-2005, 04:56 PM
I wanted Gun coming back to KC. Unfortunately it hasn't worked out the way I had hoped. In 2yrs I expected more improvement than what has been shown. I expected better results.

I'm sorry to say that it may be time to completely clean house. Let a new HC choose his DC. If Gun happens to be his choice, then great. If not, so be it and wish him the best of luck.
Be careful of what you ask. There are more GRobs and Kurt Scottenheimers out there.

Logical
11-15-2005, 05:41 PM
What's most frustrating to me is that we've run the ball and stopped the run all year long.

In the NFL, that should be a formula for success.

I firmly believe that if we dumbed down the passing offense, we'd be better off.I don't think that works if you cannot stop the pass and you fall behind in the score.

Saggysack
11-15-2005, 07:32 PM
Be careful of what you ask. There are more GRobs and Kurt Scottenheimers out there.

I'm leaning towards Ron Rivera.

Frankie
11-15-2005, 07:43 PM
I'm leaning towards Ron Rivera.
Tell me. How many seasons of defensive success does Rivera have in his resume?

Tribal Warfare
11-15-2005, 08:25 PM
I'm on the Mike Trgovac for HC bandwagon

TOUCHDOWN!!! KC
11-15-2005, 08:50 PM
Well I was wondering about the Gun/new HC thing today at work. I personally think Gun has helped the defense improve just as much as the new guys have. It would be better if he had is own guys helping coach the D.

I personally hope that Gun stays around as the DC when/if we get a new HC. Personally I think DV is gone, but you neva know if King Carl can talk him into one more year. I personally hope DV is gone, and that King Carl is too... doubt that happens but would be nice.

Fruit Ninja
11-15-2005, 08:59 PM
Keep Gun! Passing D is getting alot better now. Let him finish what he is starting. We are slowly moving up the rankings chart. Offense needs to ****ing step it up.

Tribal Warfare
11-15-2005, 09:30 PM
Keep Gun! Passing D is getting alot better now.

:shake:

Lonewolf Ed
11-15-2005, 09:39 PM
We're 25th. And getting better every week.

If we continue to improve every week until the season is over, I think Gunther should be retained.

What ranking would you be satisfied with by season's end? To consider the improvement tolerable, I am hoping for at least 15th overall by the end of the regular season.

Chiefnj
11-15-2005, 09:44 PM
My point was that you compared the progression of the offense to the progression of the defense.

From year 1 to year 2, this offense acquired Willie Roaf and instantly went from lower half to "the best".

This defense got Patrick Surtain, DJ, and two former DRoY in Washington and Bell and the defense has improved from worst to not-quite-worst.

Gunther isn't getting it done.

You (personally) usually acknowledge two different statistics to measure the level of a defense - points against and run defense. How is Gun doing with those? Improving? Or, do you refuse to give credit to anything Marty related?

Saggysack
11-16-2005, 12:30 AM
Tell me. How many seasons of defensive success does Rivera have in his resume?

Well, I'd say 4yrs of out 5 with the Eagles he was a success. His first year the Eagles, they didn't have very much success. Of course that was Andy Reid's first year as HC, so that is understandable given the circumstances. And the 2 seasons he's been with Chicago have been outstanding.

Claynus
11-16-2005, 12:41 AM
What ranking would you be satisfied with by season's end? To consider the improvement tolerable, I am hoping for at least 15th overall by the end of the regular season.

15th here, too.

Here are my defensive wishes by season's end:

Points per game: less than 20

Yards allowed per game: less than 330

Rushing yards allowed per game: less than 90

Rushing yards allowed per attempt: less than 4

Rushing TDs allowed: less than 16 (we will meet this easily barring a collapse)

Total turnovers: At least 30

Sacks: At least 40, preferably around 50.

But by FAR the most important....

Third-down conversion rate allowed: Less than 35 percent. Preferably around 30, the lower the better of course.

kregger
11-16-2005, 01:23 AM
I firmly believe that if we dumbed down the passing offense, we'd be better off.

Dumbing down the pass O? Come on, DV and AS are too freaking Prima Donna for that. They have failed to realize that the league has finally caught up with them(along with age).
Empty the backfield time after time? WTF?

htismaqe
11-16-2005, 07:27 AM
I'm on the Mike Trgovac for HC bandwagon

:clap:

htismaqe
11-16-2005, 07:28 AM
You (personally) usually acknowledge two different statistics to measure the level of a defense - points against and run defense. How is Gun doing with those? Improving? Or, do you refuse to give credit to anything Marty related?

Yes, they are improving.

And yes, those two stats are what I believe is key to a good defense.

In fact, I like this defense. I think it's good and getting better.

But I'm FED UP. I want this entire coaching staff gone. I want Carl gone. It has nothing to do with Gunther's affiliation with Marty, it has to do with his affiliation with Vermeil.

I want them all gone...START FRESH.

Claynus
11-16-2005, 08:21 AM
I guess I can see the attraction in htismaqe's wish. Dumping the D and installing a new one under new coaches doesn't necessarily mean we would suck on defense automatically.

Alot of teams succeed in their first year of a defense.

I just don't feel that good about it after watching shitty D for so many years.

htismaqe
11-16-2005, 08:54 AM
I guess I can see the attraction in htismaqe's wish. Dumping the D and installing a new one under new coaches doesn't necessarily mean we would suck on defense automatically.

Alot of teams succeed in their first year of a defense.

I just don't feel that good about it after watching shitty D for so many years.

I think this defense has talent that is being wasted and could be ALOT better than what it is.

We have guys like Wilkerson and Hall in situational roles, Kendrell Bell being used to cover tight ends, and Patrick Surtain playing 10 yards off his man.

This defense IS better, but it's not nearly as good as it could be.

Yet another reason I want Gunther gone.

Claynus
11-16-2005, 08:57 AM
Those are all excellent points. IMO Wilkerson should have been given a shot to replace Hicks at this point. But that's never going to happen because while Vermeil loves Hicks, Gunther has loved him for far longer. ROFL

joesomebody
11-16-2005, 09:09 AM
Nope, I like Gun... I say he gets a new contract, 2 years, after that we can talk again.

This D has a lot of heart, and is improving.

I would like to see more interceptions, and a much better secondary. I think we have decent personell in the secondary, so I'm not sure what is up back there other than we may be playing to soft due to our weak d-line.

Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture, because I usually have to listen to the Chiefs on the radio instead of watch, but Warfield doesn't seem to be covering as well as I would expect him to.

Get Sims back, Surtain back, and I think we have a legitimate chance to finish the season in the top 20 to 15.

We play some tough offensive teams coming up, so I may be eating my words by the end of the season.

As to Dicky V, I'd give him another season if he wants it... Al Saunders needs to take a year off, as I haven't agreed with his play calling very much at all this season, but Coach Vermeil and Gunther are welcome to stay in my book. I see Vermeil retiring though.

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 11:50 AM
I've read every single post in this thread and NOBODY has even come close to understanding the most important thing about the Chiefs.

I realize this is a thread about Gunther, but if you want to disparage a great coach without mentioning the hand cuffs he is wearing, well I think that is just unfair. Hardly any mention has been given to how much head coaches, GM's and owner’s power can circumvent any coordinators efforts.

Minus the two years Cunningham was HC (which was a totally different animal) what has been the common thread in the Chiefs' franchise the last 15 years? Answer: Lamar Hunt and Carl Peterson. What was missing in the Shott era? Answer: Offense. What was missing in the Vermeil era? Answer: Defense. What should all this tell you? Hunt and Peterson are the actual puppets in this play. They seem to follow way too much to what the head coach wants and the team falls short because of his flawed philosophical approach to the game.

But what these puppets do understand is a fan base starving for a winning team and that is willing to flood the gates and the stores to show their support. And what incredibly great support that has been, too. Profit margin doesn’t do anything for the fan but it sure does mean a lot to the ownership.

To make this long story short, I believe, as long as Carl Peterson is GM the Chiefs are in for those many years of mediocrity. The proof is in the pudding. Carl Peterson has the Chiefs winning only 3 playoff games in 15 years. Why isn’t anyone calling for his head?

The Chiefs problem is not with players, assistant coaches or anyone in offices smaller than the CEO’s. It’s the biggest office in One Arrowhead Drive that needs to change in order for KC to field a balanced team. Carl “the King Pimp” Peterson has proven he does not know how to do it. Lamar Hunt won’t do anything about it as long as the profit margin continues to look good. I think the only way to get Peterson out of there is for Chiefs’ fans to start boycotting the team. Reducing that profit margin will certainly get the attention of any money grubbing family and things will suddenly begin to change.

That, my friends, I am afraid is the real bottom line.

htismaqe
11-16-2005, 11:55 AM
I've read every single post in this thread and NOBODY has even come close to understanding the most important thing about the Chiefs.

I realize this is a thread about Gunther, but if you want to disparage a great coach without mentioning the hand cuffs he is wearing, well I think that is just unfair. Hardly any mention has been given to how much head coaches, GM's and owner’s power can circumvent any coordinators efforts.

Minus the two years Cunningham was HC (which was a totally different animal) what has been the common thread in the Chiefs' franchise the last 15 years? Answer: Lamar Hunt and Carl Peterson. What was missing in the Shott era? Answer: Offense. What was missing in the Vermeil era? Answer: Defense. What should all this tell you? Hunt and Peterson are the actual puppets in this play. They seem to follow way too much to what the head coach wants and the team falls short because of his flawed philosophical approach to the game.

But what these puppets do understand is a fan base starving for a winning team and that is willing to flood the gates and the stores to show their support. And what incredibly great support that has been, too. Profit margin doesn’t do anything for the fan but it sure does mean a lot to the ownership.

To make this long story short, I believe, as long as Carl Peterson is GM the Chiefs are in for those many years of mediocrity. The proof is in the pudding. Carl Peterson has the Chiefs winning only 3 playoff games in 15 years. Why isn’t anyone calling for his head?

The Chiefs problem is not with players, assistant coaches or anyone in offices smaller than the CEO’s. It’s the biggest office in One Arrowhead Drive that needs to change in order for KC to field a balanced team. Carl “the King Pimp” Peterson has proven he does not know how to do it. Lamar Hunt won’t do anything about it as long as the profit margin continues to look good. I think the only way to get Peterson out of there is for Chiefs’ fans to start boycotting the team. Reducing that profit margin will certainly get the attention of any money grubbing family and things will suddenly begin to change.

That, my friends, I am afraid is the real bottom line.

What does that say about a man who WILLINGLY came back here and be a powerless participant?

That, my friends, I am afraid is the real bottom line.

Lurch
11-16-2005, 11:59 AM
I've read every single post in this thread and NOBODY has even come close to understanding the most important thing about the Chiefs.

I realize this is a thread about Gunther, but if you want to disparage a great coach without mentioning the hand cuffs he is wearing, well I think that is just unfair. Hardly any mention has been given to how much head coaches, GM's and owner’s power can circumvent any coordinators efforts.

Minus the two years Cunningham was HC (which was a totally different animal) what has been the common thread in the Chiefs' franchise the last 15 years? Answer: Lamar Hunt and Carl Peterson. What was missing in the Shott era? Answer: Offense. What was missing in the Vermeil era? Answer: Defense. What should all this tell you? Hunt and Peterson are the actual puppets in this play. They seem to follow way too much to what the head coach wants and the team falls short because of his flawed philosophical approach to the game.

But what these puppets do understand is a fan base starving for a winning team and that is willing to flood the gates and the stores to show their support. And what incredibly great support that has been, too. Profit margin doesn’t do anything for the fan but it sure does mean a lot to the ownership.

To make this long story short, I believe, as long as Carl Peterson is GM the Chiefs are in for those many years of mediocrity. The proof is in the pudding. Carl Peterson has the Chiefs winning only 3 playoff games in 15 years. Why isn’t anyone calling for his head?

The Chiefs problem is not with players, assistant coaches or anyone in offices smaller than the CEO’s. It’s the biggest office in One Arrowhead Drive that needs to change in order for KC to field a balanced team. Carl “the King Pimp” Peterson has proven he does not know how to do it. Lamar Hunt won’t do anything about it as long as the profit margin continues to look good. I think the only way to get Peterson out of there is for Chiefs’ fans to start boycotting the team. Reducing that profit margin will certainly get the attention of any money grubbing family and things will suddenly begin to change.

That, my friends, I am afraid is the real bottom line.

I doubt many would disagree CP is the major problem. Gun came back, knowing what he knows about CP. Too bad for him.

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 12:05 PM
What does that say about a man who WILLINGLY came back here and be a powerless participant?

Every single paid employee below upper management is a powerless participant compared to what power those in the high offices wield. Anywhere Cunningham would have gone he would be powerless in comparison. What are trying to say? Cunningham only signs unless he he has ultimate authority with the defense? If you are then you don't really know diddily squat about hierarchial decisions do you?

htismaqe
11-16-2005, 12:17 PM
Every single paid employee below upper management is a powerless participant compared to what power those in the high offices wield. Anywhere Cunningham would have gone he would be powerless in comparison. What are trying to say? Cunningham only signs unless he he has ultimate authority with the defense? If you are then you don't really know diddily squat about hierarchial decisions do you?

If all else fails, play the "you don't know what you're talking about" card.

It's quite simple.

Yes, every team has a heirarchical front office structure.

Not every team ALLOWED YOU TO FIND OUT YOU WERE BEING FIRED OVER THE INTERNET.

Not every team NEVER BOTHERED TO CALL YOU AND TELL YOU THAT YOU WERE BEING REPLACED.

Not every team asked you to be their defensive coordinator, but told you that YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BRING IN YOUR OWN COACHES.

What am I trying to say?

Gunther is NOT A VICTIM. He came back here knowing full well what he was getting into.

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 12:18 PM
I doubt many would disagree CP is the major problem. Gun came back, knowing what he knows about CP. Too bad for him.

I agree. But why should that take away from what Cunningham brings to the table? Just because Cunningham returns (which I am equally befuddled about) doesn't make him weak. Money talks. There could be promises about loftier positions. Maybe Peterson has offered Cunningham a shot at next head coach. Maybe that was the enticement. Who knows. What I am glad about is that Cunningham is back with the Chiefs. Better the Chiefs have him than some other team. It should be obvious to any tuned observer that Cunningham has this defense on the rise in only the second season.

I say Peterson is too blame for listening too much to coaches and for not having enough football knowledge to make his own decisions. That I believe is the big picture. But if a condition on Cunningham's return was for Peterson to fulfill a "wish list" from Cunningham then I applaud that move. Its about time but maybe too late, AGAIN!! The offense has been figured out by opponents and to what do the Chiefs still have. An unbalanced team. Who is still the GM?

htismaqe
11-16-2005, 12:19 PM
I just noticed that you had the audacity (or is it just plain ignorance?) to ask in your original post why nobody is calling for Carl Peterson's head...

Were you born yesterday?

The number 1 most common post here is CALLING FOR PETERSON'S HEAD.

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 12:29 PM
If all else fails, play the "you don't know what you're talking about" card.

It's quite simple.

Yes, every team has a heirarchical front office structure.

Not every team ALLOWED YOU TO FIND OUT YOU WERE BEING FIRED OVER THE INTERNET.

Not every team NEVER BOTHERED TO CALL YOU AND TELL YOU THAT YOU WERE BEING REPLACED.

Not every team asked you to be their defensive coordinator, but told you that YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BRING IN YOUR OWN COACHES.

What am I trying to say?

Gunther is NOT A VICTIM. He came back here knowing full well what he was getting into.

Whoever said Cunningham is a victim? Of course, he knew what he was doing. In fact that makes it, to me, all the more telling that he would come back after such "apparent mis-treatment" from Peterson. Peterson, the King Pimp, has made promises. Promises to entice. Maybe as a strong endorsement for a head coaching position for another team. Maybe a possible shot at head coach again for this team. Who knows, man.

Obviously you have some kind of obsession with Cunningham. Did he kiss your daughter or sister? Did steal your bicycle? What is it with Cunningham you don't like so much other than his impeccable record as DC with the Chiefs and/or his 16-16 record as a head coach?

Who said Cunningham couldn't bring in his own coaches? I didn't realize you were a fly on the wall.

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 12:35 PM
I just noticed that you had the audacity (or is it just plain ignorance?) to ask in your original post why nobody is calling for Carl Peterson's head...

Were you born yesterday?

The number 1 most common post here is CALLING FOR PETERSON'S HEAD.

Well, excuse me Mr. 43,000 posts, I have a life elsewhere that does not revolve around this website. But kind of knowing what sort of cult-type/ gang-mentality that goes on with these types of forums I guess I should not challenge someone such as you.

milkman
11-16-2005, 12:36 PM
I agree. But why should that take away from what Cunningham brings to the table? Just because Cunningham returns (which I am equally befuddled about) doesn't make him weak. Money talks. There could be promises about loftier positions. Maybe Peterson has offered Cunningham a shot at next head coach. Maybe that was the enticement. Who knows. What I am glad about is that Cunningham is back with the Chiefs. Better the Chiefs have him than some other team. It should be obvious to any tuned observer that Cunningham has this defense on the rise in only the second season.

I say Peterson is too blame for listening too much to coaches and for not having enough football knowledge to make his own decisions. That I believe is the big picture. But if a condition on Cunningham's return was for Peterson to fulfill a "wish list" from Cunningham then I applaud that move. Its about time but maybe too late, AGAIN!! The offense has been figured out by opponents and to what do the Chiefs still have. An unbalanced team. Who is still the GM?

Peterson is too blame for listening to coaches, but gets applauded for listening to Gun?

milkman
11-16-2005, 12:38 PM
Whoever said Cunningham is a victim? Of course, he knew what he was doing. In fact that makes it, to me, all the more telling that he would come back after such "apparent mis-treatment" from Peterson. Peterson, the King Pimp, has made promises. Promises to entice. Maybe as a strong endorsement for a head coaching position for another team. Maybe a possible shot at head coach again for this team. Who knows, man.

Obviously you have some kind of obsession with Cunningham. Did he kiss your daughter or sister? Did steal your bicycle? What is it with Cunningham you don't like so much other than his impeccable record as DC with the Chiefs and/or his 16-16 record as a head coach?

Who said Cunningham couldn't bring in his own coaches? I didn't realize you were a fly on the wall.

Impeccable record?

The guy is inconsistent, at best.

milkman
11-16-2005, 12:42 PM
It should be obvious to any tuned observer that Cunningham has this defense on the rise in only the second season.

The defense has had to good games against crappy opponents, and has been average to bad against the rest of the schedule.

Mike Trgovic had the Panthers playing outstanding defense from the start of his 2nd season as DC in Carolina, which was a huge factor in their run to the SB that season.

Rausch
11-16-2005, 12:43 PM
The guy is inconsistent, at best.

And DV is the model of consistency.

:hmmm:

htismaqe
11-16-2005, 12:43 PM
Whoever said Cunningham is a victim? Of course, he knew what he was doing. In fact that makes it, to me, all the more telling that he would come back after such "apparent mis-treatment" from Peterson. Peterson, the King Pimp, has made promises. Promises to entice. Maybe as a strong endorsement for a head coaching position for another team. Maybe a possible shot at head coach again for this team. Who knows, man.

Obviously you have some kind of obsession with Cunningham. Did he kiss your daughter or sister? Did steal your bicycle? What is it with Cunningham you don't like so much other than his impeccable record as DC with the Chiefs and/or his 16-16 record as a head coach?

Who said Cunningham couldn't bring in his own coaches? I didn't realize you were a fly on the wall.

I don't like Gunther Cunningham. I think he's bad for our football team. I don't think he's emotionally stable and the reason I pointed all of those things out is because it tells me the guy lacks real character. Not the kind of guy I want around my favorite football team.

As for his "impeccable record" as a DC, you might want to read here:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/kanindex.htm

He NEVER put a great defense on the field 2 years in a row. His defenses were as schizo as he is.

And as for your last question, you do realize that people are going to laugh at you, right?

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 12:48 PM
Peterson is too blame for listening to coaches, but gets applauded for listening to Gun?

Ah, yes.

I did I mention the two coaches, IMO, he has listened way too much, also, IMO, have flawed philosophical approaches to the game. If he can't make his own decisions and if he is to listen to anyone maybe it should be to Cunningham. When has Cunningham showed something less than upmost knowledge of the game. He has already proved what he can do with defenses. Why shouldn't he listen to Cunningham the DC?

My point with Peterson is, is that he had plenty of time to see the patterns developing and didn't do anything about it. I know I'm going to get lamb-basted over this based on the confounded attitude the posters in this thread have over Cunningham but as far as I am concerned Peterson's biggest blunder was letting Cunningham go as HC. He was on to something while still learning how to be a HC in this league. It may be, just may be why Cunningham HAS returned. Peterson may have pulled his head out of his ass and brought Cunningham back to succeed Vermeil.

milkman
11-16-2005, 12:48 PM
And DV is the model of consistency.

:hmmm:

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

I don't like Dick, either.

Lurch
11-16-2005, 12:50 PM
... Cunningham only signs unless he he has ultimate authority with the defense? If you are then you don't really know diddily squat about hierarchial decisions do you?

And one who willingly gets involved in a heirarchial organization that is a dictatorship, shares in the blame. To choose to be a part of that, is choosing to share in the blame.

milkman
11-16-2005, 12:53 PM
Ah, yes.

I did I mention the two coaches, IMO, he has listened way too much, also, IMO, have flawed philosophical approaches to the game. If he can't make his own decisions and if he is to listen to anyone maybe it should be to Cunningham. When has Cunningham showed something less than upmost knowledge of the game. He has already proved what he can do with defenses. Why shouldn't he listen to Cunningham the DC?

My point with Peterson is, is that he had plenty of time to see the patterns developing and didn't do anything about it. I know I'm going to get lamb-basted over this based on the confounded attitude the posters in this thread have over Cunningham but as far as I am concerned Peterson's biggest blunder was letting Cunningham go as HC. He was on to something while still learning how to be a HC in this league. It may be, just may be why Cunningham HAS returned. Peterson may have pulled his head out of his ass and brought Cunningham back to succeed Vermeil.

The link that Parker (Htis) so kindly provided points out that Gun is, as I claimed, inconsistent, and should also debunk the myth that Gun is some sort of defensive genius.

As for HC, the guy lost the team.
He should never, ever be considered for that position again.

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 01:02 PM
So am I to suppose that any one of you think you can do a better job as defensive coordinator for the Kansas City Chiefs? Is that why you htismage and sidewinder are so down on Cunningham? Is that why you don't even want to give him the FAIR opportunity to succeed? I mean fair by saying that in 2004 it probably was agreed that he could begin to implement his "wishlist" for 2005 and would have to deal with what he inherited until then.

Look at Cunningham's first year as DC with the Chiefs. That was '95. His first year. He inherited some good players but they still finished way above statistically than in '94. His first year. This go around he has way less talent and I propose to you that as long as he gets the players he wants on defense, his defense will once again reign supreme.

And to htismage, I also didn't realize you slept with Cunningham because I don't think I have ever heard such remarks someone has made about someone else unless they have slept with them. Or could you just be an extremely shallow and judge"mental" person yourself?

stevieray
11-16-2005, 01:02 PM
The link that Parker (Htis) so kindly provided points out that Gun is, as I claimed, inconsistent, and should also debunk the myth that Gun is some sort of defensive genius.

As for HC, the guy lost the team.
He should never, ever be considered for that position again.

he inherited a lost team.

Lurch
11-16-2005, 01:04 PM
he inherited a lost team.

I agree. Picking up the remnants of Marty's disaster would have been difficult for anyone.

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 01:07 PM
And one who willingly gets involved in a heirarchial organization that is a dictatorship, shares in the blame. To choose to be a part of that, is choosing to share in the blame.

I know. That is a good point and I have often thought of that and it befuddles me. That is why I tend to think there is more to this than just a DC position and good money. If things really went down like it was proported to be when Cunningham was fired, I certainly wouldn't have wanted to come back to that unless there was something more. Maybe things weren't all as bad as what everyone seems to believe.

milkman
11-16-2005, 01:11 PM
So am I to suppose that any one of you think you can do a better job as defensive coordinator for the Kansas City Chiefs? Is that why you htismage and sidewinder are so down on Cunningham? Is that why you don't even want to give him the FAIR opportunity to succeed? I mean fair by saying that in 2004 it probably was agreed that he could begin to implement his "wishlist" for 2005 and would have to deal with what he inherited until then.

Look at Cunningham's first year as DC with the Chiefs. That was '95. His first year. He inherited some good players but they still finished way above statistically than in '94. His first year. This go around he has way less talent and I propose to you that as long as he gets the players he wants on defense, his defense will once again reign supreme.

And to htismage, I also didn't realize you slept with Cunningham because I don't think I have ever heard such remarks someone has made about someone else unless they have slept with them. Or could you just be an extremely shallow and judge"mental" person yourself?

Good God, what a tool.

We are not suggesting we would do a better job than Gun.

We are suggesting that there are quilified people who would have done/can do a better job then Gun.

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 01:11 PM
The link that Parker (Htis) so kindly provided points out that Gun is, as I claimed, inconsistent, and should also debunk the myth that Gun is some sort of defensive genius.

As for HC, the guy lost the team.
He should never, ever be considered for that position again.

Right there!!! What do you mean he lost the team? Explain that. Were you in the locker room??? Were you on the practice fields??? How do you know anything about that? I challenge you to back that up with facts!!

Rausch
11-16-2005, 01:11 PM
I'm not sure what you are getting at.

I don't like Dick, either.

I think more should be taken into account than final record alone.

Gun's stooges made some horrible decisions and play calls, we saw GROB and now we see Saunders making stupid in game decisions and play calls.

If we cut DV's stay here at the 2 year mark no one would have been impressed with him either.

I'm not saying Gun could have done as much given the time only that he should get an incomplete in place of an F...

milkman
11-16-2005, 01:12 PM
he inherited a lost team.

True, but at the time he lost the team, they were in a playoff race.

stevieray
11-16-2005, 01:14 PM
True, but at the time he lost the team, they were in a playoff race.

three kickoffs out of bounds?

in a playoff race? not to shabby, considering what he had to work with.


The year before last when stood pat is now biting us.

Rausch
11-16-2005, 01:19 PM
The year before last when stood pat is now biting us.

Yup.

But injuries made an already poor defense even worse.

Hell, just look at the difference in how good the Pats look with Monty at MLB and Kawika here for us. Huge diffence.

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 01:19 PM
Good God, what a tool.

We are not suggesting we would do a better job than Gun.

We are suggesting that there are quilified people who would have done/can do a better job then Gun.

oh my gosh that was such a thorough explaination. Would you care to expound on that?

Why do people such as yourself expect such instant gratification? Can't Cunningham have just a little of your patience? Maybe just a hair? He just got back for Pete's sake. The man has to repair a sinking ship. Until he gets it back sea-worthy its going to take on a little water. And I also propose to you that no one else could have made this a #32 ranked into a number #1 ranked which I guess you all expect in just two seasons. That is such a laugher!

milkman
11-16-2005, 01:21 PM
Right there!!! What do you mean he lost the team? Explain that. Were you in the locker room??? Were you on the practice fields??? How do you know anything about that? I challenge you to back that up with facts!!

If you didn't see that team quit on him in the last two games of the '99 season, then there isn't any proof that I could provide that you are going to accept.

Logical
11-16-2005, 01:21 PM
...
The year before last when stood pat is now biting us.I cannot imagine how insightful someone would have had to have been to be saying that at the time.:p

milkman
11-16-2005, 01:23 PM
three kickoffs out of bounds?

in a playoff race? not to shabby, considering what he had to work with.


The year before last when stood pat is now biting us.

Yes, but he liked Baker so much, because he cut off his sleeves.

Oh, and Elvis was a great QB, because he grew a beard.

It would have been better if he had grown a pair, instead.

milkman
11-16-2005, 01:26 PM
oh my gosh that was such a thorough explaination. Would you care to expound on that?

Why do people such as yourself expect such instant gratification? Can't Cunningham have just a little of your patience? Maybe just a hair? He just got back for Pete's sake. The man has to repair a sinking ship. Until he gets it back sea-worthy its going to take on a little water. And I also propose to you that no one else could have made this a #32 ranked into a number #1 ranked which I guess you all expect in just two seasons. That is such a laugher!

Look at the defensive rankings of the Chiefs that Parker provided in his link.

He had talent all over those defenses, and the single most outstanding defensive playmaker in the game in the 90s, and he still couldn't field a consitently top 10 defense.

Logical
11-16-2005, 01:28 PM
If all else fails, play the "you don't know what you're talking about" card.

It's quite simple.

Yes, every team has a heirarchical front office structure.

Not every team ALLOWED YOU TO FIND OUT YOU WERE BEING FIRED OVER THE INTERNET.

Not every team NEVER BOTHERED TO CALL YOU AND TELL YOU THAT YOU WERE BEING REPLACED.

Not every team asked you to be their defensive coordinator, but told you that YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BRING IN YOUR OWN COACHES.

What am I trying to say?

Gunther is NOT A VICTIM. He came back here knowing full well what he was getting into.A victim and a pussy. A pussy for coming back, damn sure a pussy for coming back without being able to name his own staff.

As far as being a victim, my feeling is he sort of deserved it, if anyone ever has. Course I will freely admit to disliking Gun as much as Sidewinder dislikes DV.

stevieray
11-16-2005, 01:28 PM
Yes, but he liked Baker so much, because he cut off his sleeves.

Oh, and Elvis was a great QB, because he grew a beard.

It would have been better if he had grown a pair, instead.

irrelevant.

Rausch
11-16-2005, 01:28 PM
He had talent all over those defenses, and the single most outstanding defensive playmaker in the game in the 90s, and he still couldn't field a consitently top 10 defense.

Uh, yes he did.

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 01:30 PM
three kickoffs out of bounds?

in a playoff race? not to shabby, considering what he had to work with.


The year before last when stood pat is now biting us.

Very true!!! Cunningham was just a kicker away from making the playoffs that season. HIS FIRST YEAR AS A HEAD COACH! And there are those that will say he lost the team the next season. After Derrick Thomas died before the season started. That was only Cunningham's second year as HC and he had to deal with that!! They finished 7-9. I'd say that was pretty impressive. He needed a third year to bring around his defense but wasn't given that chance. I think he was robbed.

Lurch
11-16-2005, 01:33 PM
Right there!!! What do you mean he lost the team? Explain that. Were you in the locker room??? Were you on the practice fields??? How do you know anything about that? I challenge you to back that up with facts!!

Are you Gun's son? Be honest. We won't tell. :hmmm:

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 01:33 PM
Look at the defensive rankings of the Chiefs that Parker provided in his link.

He had talent all over those defenses, and the single most outstanding defensive playmaker in the game in the 90s, and he still couldn't field a consitently top 10 defense.

Those defenses were good enough to win in any playoff game! And who in the world consistently fields top 10 defenses. Go ahead, name them. The way you make it sound, there are many.

milkman
11-16-2005, 01:35 PM
Uh, yes he did.

Maybe I'm misreading that, but according to the link, he went from from #4 to #17 to #15 to #9 in his 4 years as DC.

In points allowed he went from #1 to #11 to #1 to #22

Logical
11-16-2005, 01:49 PM
Uh, yes he did.Nope, pretty much an every other year thing. Now if you are comparing the off years to the current Chiefs they would be considered very good D's but they were not the least bit consistent or outstanding every year.

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 01:50 PM
Maybe I'm misreading that, but according to the link, he went from from #4 to #17 to #15 to #9 in his 4 years as DC.

In points allowed he went from #1 to #11 to #1 to #22

Wait a minute. Without doing the research myself you're saying the '97 defense was #15 in total yards but #1 in scoring? I don't think either of those are right.

There are more variables than just numbers, man. The '98 defense was without Neil Smith, Derrick Thomas' effectiveness was being exploited. There were cancers developing in the locker room that I don't think was Gunther's doing. Remember the Monday Night Meltdown in '98? The beginning of the end for Shottenheimer. The end of that season was reduced to a team in total disarray. Cunningham took over that team as a head coach and almost took them to the playoffs with a 9-7 record.

milkman
11-16-2005, 01:50 PM
Those defenses were good enough to win in any playoff game! And who in the world consistently fields top 10 defenses. Go ahead, name them. The way you make it sound, there are many.

How about Marvin Lewis in '99 to '02 with the Ravens, and the Skins?

Mr. Kotter
11-16-2005, 01:55 PM
Those defenses were good enough to win in any playoff game! And who in the world consistently fields top 10 defenses. Go ahead, name them. The way you make it sound, there are many.

In fairness, schedules, personnel changes, and injuries all influence team standings and offense/defense rankings....the key is to be consistently good. I agree, given circumstances Gun's teams have generally done well. That could be validated once again this year, IF the team finishes at or near the middle of the pack. If not, maybe he has lost the touch....or maybe DT, Hasty, and Neil Smith really did make that big of a difference.

milkman
11-16-2005, 01:55 PM
Wait a minute. Without doing the research myself you're saying the '97 defense was #15 in total yards but #1 in scoring? I don't think either of those are right.

There are more variables than just numbers, man. The '98 defense was without Neil Smith, Derrick Thomas' effectiveness was being exploited. There were cancers developing in the locker room that I don't think was Gunther's doing. Remember the Monday Night Meltdown in '98? The beginning of the end for Shottenheimer. The end of that season was reduced to a team in total disarray. Cunningham took over that team as a head coach and almost took them to the playoffs with a 9-7 record.

I think '97 was the season that Gun's defense set a record for most consecutive games without allowing a TD in the second half, or something like that.
And for that, my hat goes off to Gun.

But the fact remains, he is inconsistent.

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 02:00 PM
Are you Gun's son? Be honest. We won't tell. :hmmm:

No, just someone who wants to see the Chiefs win in the playoffs and I am not seeing that. No one can say how Cunningham would have done with his third year as HC. He fielded a team that was beating Denver in Denver. He was a knat's hair from getting past Oakland. Instead, everyone wanted him out. Now five years later I'm still witnessing the same Chiefs. Everyone was wrong weren't they? Now they want Vermeil gone but it took 5 years to get to that. Cunningham didn't even get three.

I hope he gets another shot. I'll really laugh very loud if he were to take over again and have the Chiefs in the playoff after two seasons. I suspect no one would ever hear from posters like sindwinder, htismage and logicslav again.

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 02:05 PM
How about Marvin Lewis in '99 to '02 with the Ravens, and the Skins?

That's two. Now I bet you can come up with a long list of DC's who have NEVER fielded a #1 scoring defense and #2 total defense in the same year. I believe those were the numbers in '95.

Who really cares about off years anyway. Cunningham was DC over two seasons that were good enough to win the SB. They did their part in the playoffs. What about that do you have a problem with? Oh, its because it wasn't EVERY SINGLE year, right? That's all you got to go on?

milkman
11-16-2005, 02:06 PM
How about Marvin Lewis in '99 to '02 with the Ravens, and the Skins?

How about Dom Capers in '92 and '93 in Pittsburg, then after losing his HC job in Carolina, he returned to the DC position in '99, taking a Jags D that finished #25 in '98, finished in the top 10 again in '99 and '00.

milkman
11-16-2005, 02:09 PM
No, just someone who wants to see the Chiefs win in the playoffs and I am not seeing that. No one can say how Cunningham would have done with his third year as HC. He fielded a team that was beating Denver in Denver. He was a knat's hair from getting past Oakland. Instead, everyone wanted him out. Now five years later I'm still witnessing the same Chiefs. Everyone was wrong weren't they? Now they want Vermeil gone but it took 5 years to get to that. Cunningham didn't even get three.

I hope he gets another shot. I'll really laugh very loud if he were to take over again and have the Chiefs in the playoff after two seasons. I suspect no one would ever hear from posters like sindwinder, htismage and logicslav again.

Yeah.
Jim, Parker and I have been here from the start.

You'll leave this forum crying before any of us leave.

Mr. Kotter
11-16-2005, 02:15 PM
.... I suspect no one would ever hear from posters like sindwinder, htismage and logicslav again.

Noob.

They are part of the founding fathers here. They were here when you got a woody slow dancin' back in middle school, and they'll be here after you learn to last more than 3 minutes with a woman--a couple of years from now....;)

Rausch
11-16-2005, 02:17 PM
Maybe I'm misreading that, but according to the link, he went from from #4 to #17 to #15 to #9 in his 4 years as DC.

In points allowed he went from #1 to #11 to #1 to #22

Name me ten defenses in the 90's in that span better than the Chiefs. Not by individual year, I'm talking about that defensive unit.

The Steelers were good, Niners for a little while, Cowboys for a little while, Broncos for a little while, Eagles. There were few teams COSISTENTLY as good as ours.

A defense isn't one stat: it's sacks, int's, yards allowed, pts allowed, all of it.

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 02:19 PM
...given circumstances Gun's teams have generally done well. That could be validated once again this year, IF the team finishes at or near the middle of the pack. If not, maybe he has lost the touch....or maybe DT, Hasty, and Neil Smith really did make that big of a difference.

Of course they made a difference. So did Chester McGlockton and Donnie Edwards. Its how much time you have to get those players you want and to put them in position to perform. So far Cunningham has gotten some proven new players. Now he needs time to get these players playing together and it might not just be this season. Robinson had 3 years. Once again Cunningham doesn't get that same consideration?

You know the way a lot of posters talk on this forum, I doubt it echos the vast majority of Chiefs' fans. Surely most Chiefs' fans aren't this impatient, aren't this negatively obsessed about Cunningham. If so Cunningham doesn't stand a chance and I'll never understand why he came back.

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 02:21 PM
Noob.

They are part of the founding fathers here. They were here when you got a woody slow dancin' back in middle school, and they'll be here after you learn to last more than 3 minutes with a woman--a couple of years from now....;)

oh, brother. another keyboard pounder. 22,000 posts. I see you got nothing else to do either.

Mr. Kotter
11-16-2005, 02:24 PM
oh, brother. another keyboard pounder. 22,000 posts. I see you got nothing else to do either.

Averaging 14 posts a day over the course of five years may seem daunting to some, but not all of us ride the short bus. ;)

kcirnamffoh
11-16-2005, 02:27 PM
Yeah.
Jim, Parker and I have been here from the start.

You'll leave this forum crying before any of us leave.

Yeah, its because I got a life other than a keyboard and a display, oh and I guess in your case, your right hand. Your nothing but a poster on a board with thousands and thousands of posts and from what I have read an extremely negative and frustrated individual that is mostly wrong about the Chiefs. There, I feel better now.

milkman
11-16-2005, 02:28 PM
Name me ten defenses in the 90's in that span better than the Chiefs. Not by individual year, I'm talking about that defensive unit.

The Steelers were good, Niners for a little while, Cowboys for a little while, Broncos for a little while, Eagles. There were few teams COSISTENTLY as good as ours.

A defense isn't one stat: it's sacks, int's, yards allowed, pts allowed, all of it.

I don't disagree with any of that.

But he got that infusion of talent this season, and this defense is really all that much better than last season.

He's misusuing Bell, DJ and Surtain.

He iplemeted the "Falcon" defense, which was a colossal waste of DT's strength, blitzing from the LB position.

All I am saying is that he is not this great defensive mind that people make him out to be.

Almost any DC could have had nearly the same kind of success in the 90s that Gun had, with the talent that he had.

Hell the Chiefs D under Dave Adolf was almost as good, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get many people proclaiming Adilf as a great DC.

Rausch
11-16-2005, 02:30 PM
oh, brother. another keyboard pounder. 22,000 posts. I see you got nothing else to do either.

Watch where you wave that thing...

htismaqe
11-16-2005, 02:32 PM
Well, excuse me Mr. 43,000 posts, I have a life elsewhere that does not revolve around this website. But kind of knowing what sort of cult-type/ gang-mentality that goes on with these types of forums I guess I should not challenge someone such as you.

Classic. If you can't win an argument on merit, attack your opponent...

htismaqe
11-16-2005, 02:32 PM
So am I to suppose that any one of you think you can do a better job as defensive coordinator for the Kansas City Chiefs? Is that why you htismage and sidewinder are so down on Cunningham? Is that why you don't even want to give him the FAIR opportunity to succeed? I mean fair by saying that in 2004 it probably was agreed that he could begin to implement his "wishlist" for 2005 and would have to deal with what he inherited until then.

Look at Cunningham's first year as DC with the Chiefs. That was '95. His first year. He inherited some good players but they still finished way above statistically than in '94. His first year. This go around he has way less talent and I propose to you that as long as he gets the players he wants on defense, his defense will once again reign supreme.

And to htismage, I also didn't realize you slept with Cunningham because I don't think I have ever heard such remarks someone has made about someone else unless they have slept with them. Or could you just be an extremely shallow and judge"mental" person yourself?

Yeah that's it. Cement the fact that you've lost the argument by attacking me.

milkman
11-16-2005, 02:33 PM
Yeah, its because I got a life other than a keyboard and a display, oh and I guess in your case, your right hand. Your nothing but a poster on a board with thousands and thousands of posts and from what I have read an extremely negative and frustrated individual that is mostly wrong about the Chiefs. There, I feel better now.

First, I can use my left hand too.

Second, hell yea, I'm extremely frustrated.
I haven't watched the Chiefs in the SB for 35 years.

Third, you are right, I am wrong about the Chiefs a lot.

But not nearly as wrong as you are.

htismaqe
11-16-2005, 02:52 PM
No, just someone who wants to see the Chiefs win in the playoffs and I am not seeing that. No one can say how Cunningham would have done with his third year as HC. He fielded a team that was beating Denver in Denver. He was a knat's hair from getting past Oakland. Instead, everyone wanted him out. Now five years later I'm still witnessing the same Chiefs. Everyone was wrong weren't they? Now they want Vermeil gone but it took 5 years to get to that. Cunningham didn't even get three.

I hope he gets another shot. I'll really laugh very loud if he were to take over again and have the Chiefs in the playoff after two seasons. I suspect no one would ever hear from posters like sindwinder, htismage and logicslav again.

You want to see KC win in the playoffs.

Interesting. Gunther was DC under Marty from 1995 to 1998. He was HC from 1999 to 2000, and now he's been DC under Vermeil for 2 years.

He's been part of ZERO playoff wins.

Seems to me if you REALLY wanted to see KC win in the playoffs, you'd have a hard-on for somebody that could actually WIN in the playoffs...

Claynus
11-16-2005, 02:55 PM
Like any of that was Gunther's fault....it was the offense.

htismaqe
11-16-2005, 03:55 PM
Like any of that was Gunther's fault....it was the offense.

ROFL

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/kanindex.htm

Take a look at the 2 years Gunther was head coach and tell me again that it was the offense...

Claynus
11-16-2005, 04:17 PM
ROFL

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/kanindex.htm

Take a look at the 2 years Gunther was head coach and tell me again that it was the offense...

I was talking about the playoff games.

Granted his defenses were mediocre as a head coach. I also think a large part of that was because Kurt Schottenheimer sucked.

htismaqe
11-16-2005, 05:12 PM
I was talking about the playoff games.

Granted his defenses were mediocre as a head coach. I also think a large part of that was because Kurt Schottenheimer sucked.

Who hired Kurt Schottenheimer?

The only thing that follows Gunther is an endless stream of excuses.

Claynus
11-16-2005, 05:13 PM
Who hired Kurt Schottenheimer?

The only thing that follows Gunther is an endless stream of excuses.

I don't want Gunther as HC again, that much is obvious.

I think he's a fine defensive coordinatoor though.

milkman
11-16-2005, 05:50 PM
I don't want Gunther as HC again, that much is obvious.

I think he's a fine defensive coordinatoor though.

I'm officially on the Trgovic bandwagon, which is the one that I believe that Parker is driving.

He could bring in any of his defensive staff with him as DC.

Rausch
11-16-2005, 05:56 PM
I'm officially on the Trgovic bandwagon, which is the one that I believe that Parker is driving.

He could bring in any of his defensive staff with him as DC.

These guys make him sound like.....well....

I blame his poor performance solely on Trgovic. There is no creative stunts or dumps from our Defensive Line. Remember all the pulls and stunts we did when Del Rio was coaching? There was confusion, mass hysteria, you just didn't know which way we were coming.

I'm convinced that Trgovic's lack of creativeness is what's hurting this defense the most.

And why the fuq would you call off the dogs in the 2nd half? Was he trying to rest them for next week?

I just don't get this Jekyll and Hyde defense.

http://panthershuddle.com/newforum/viewtopic.php?t=15169

milkman
11-16-2005, 06:11 PM
http://www.panthers.com/team/coachbio.jsp?id=1129

I know that a team's official website will write glowing words about their people, but the fact that he has been able to continue to prosper despite injuries over the years speaks volumes about him, and his staff.

Look at how well Gun has adapted to key players missing.

Think "McPassOn".