PDA

View Full Version : New Chiefs ownership


ChiefsfaninPA
01-03-2006, 01:00 PM
Would be a good answer to some of the problems that seem to plague us. We think Dick was too loyal, explain the Hunts loyalty to Peterson. I saw a clip of the Vikes head coach saying he didn't care how much money it cost he was going to improve the team. I never hear that s#$@ coming from our ownership. I think some of us could be laying too much of the blame towards the wrong people. The ownership, in my opinion bears most of it. If the Hunts wanted to win before I die (I am only 24) they need to spend some of that revenue on the team.

KCTitus
01-03-2006, 01:18 PM
The Hunt's have never been shy about spending money...some of the greatest FA busts in NFL history we're KC's.

For those of us with the memory span of an average 4 year old, one might want to recall the last offseason of 2005, FA signings of 2003 and the resignings of Holmes, Green, Gonzo in 2004.

A lot of $$ has been spent.

Brock
01-03-2006, 01:19 PM
What an ignoramus.

sedated
01-03-2006, 01:20 PM
Lamar only has a few years left, let's not waste it dragging him into the street and beating the sh!t out of him...wait for Clark to take over

jspchief
01-03-2006, 01:22 PM
I wish we could be more like the Vikings too! All those Superbowl trophies, and consistent over-achieving. sigh...

ChiefsfaninPA
01-03-2006, 06:43 PM
I wish we could be more like the Vikings too! All those Superbowl trophies, and consistent over-achieving. sigh...

I wasn't trying to make a comparison between the two franchises only the mentality of the owner. Now I know that he is a new owner but he seems like he really wants to win. The Hunts have been very good to Kansas City, but as a fan I want to win and win now. They do spend money on FA's but the wrong ones. How many of those FA were the second best option that were available at the time.

nychief
01-03-2006, 06:49 PM
I wasn't trying to make a comparison between the two franchises only the mentality of the owner. Now I know that he is a new owner but he seems like he really wants to win. The Hunts have been very good to Kansas City, but as a fan I want to win and win now. They do spend money on FA's but the wrong ones. How many of those FA were the second best option that were available at the time.



that would be a GM problem you have there.... BTW, I would take Surtain over Fred Smoot everyday.

morphius
01-03-2006, 06:51 PM
Something else to keep in mind, those cheap Hunts have had the highest paid coaching staff the last few years.

ChiefsfaninPA
01-03-2006, 06:53 PM
that would be a GM problem you have there.... BTW, I would take Surtain over Fred Smoot everyday.


The owner has say over who is being picked up also not just the GM. And I was thinking more along the lines of Ty Law who has played pretty well this year. Though Surtain is very good also. I actually like him as an addition. But when it comes to spending money Carl went with the cheaper option not the better one(though Law still was trying to prove he was healthy).

ChiefsfaninPA
01-03-2006, 06:54 PM
Something else to keep in mind, those cheap Hunts have had the highest paid coaching staff the last few years.


Yeah, and look at all the titles we have won. You have to spend money on players.

morphius
01-03-2006, 07:01 PM
Yeah, and look at all the titles we have won. You have to spend money on players.
Look at what that did for Washington? They had to bring a coach who refused to play that way before they made the playoff's.

The pats cut a lot of their players when they seek high prices, and they suck.

Of course luckily we have all that money under the cap every year...

jidar
01-03-2006, 07:03 PM
Spending money is not the problem, it never has been.

morphius
01-03-2006, 07:04 PM
The owner has say over who is being picked up also not just the GM. And I was thinking more along the lines of Ty Law who has played pretty well this year. Though Surtain is very good also. I actually like him as an addition. But when it comes to spending money Carl went with the cheaper option not the better one(though Law still was trying to prove he was healthy).
The Jets have Law for 1 year, now he is going to be gone, and what do they have to show for that move? We have Surtain for a while at least.

ChiefsfaninPA
01-03-2006, 07:05 PM
Look at what that did for Washington? They had to bring a coach who refused to play that way before they made the playoff's.

The pats cut a lot of their players when they seek high prices, and they suck.

Of course luckily we have all that money under the cap every year...

Ok, fair enough, then they (the Hunts and Peterson) just suck at evaluating talent. But it seems like that lack of talent evaluation has to do with spending money. I believe it is easier for a owner/gm to spend money on the coaching staff than a athlete because in relative terms they are paying less. And I don't believe the staffs salary goes against the cap.

ChiefsfaninPA
01-03-2006, 07:06 PM
[QUOTE=morphius]The Jets have Law for 1 year, now he is going to be gone, and what do they have to show for that move? We have Surtain for a while at least.[/QUOTE

They could've signed him longer. Do you think that we will take a look. I am sure because of cap room we won't.

Adept Havelock
01-03-2006, 07:09 PM
Yep, those skinflint Hunts...how dare they fund the most highly paid and largest coaching staff in the NFL (till yesterday at least).

Not to mention all those horrible signing bonuses they refused to give to Tony G and Priest....

HMc
01-03-2006, 07:13 PM
[QUOTE=morphius]The Jets have Law for 1 year, now he is going to be gone, and what do they have to show for that move? We have Surtain for a while at least.[/QUOTE

They could've signed him longer. Do you think that we will take a look. I am sure because of cap room we won't.

So if cap room is the problem how can you claim they won't spend the coin? Or are you worried about CBs specifically? Maybe they should cut Green and LJ and sign Chump and Ed Reed?

ChiefsfaninPA
01-03-2006, 07:16 PM
So if cap room is the problem how can you claim they won't spend the coin? Or are you worried about CBs specifically? Maybe they should cut Green and LJ and sign Chump and Ed Reed?

I don't know if cap room is an issue, I have no clue where we are at with our cap. I am not talking about any specific player or position, I have just been using CB as an example. I think that position is the least of our defensive concerns. We need a better d-line.

ChiefsCountry
01-03-2006, 07:34 PM
The only way we get better ownership than the Hunt family is if the team was owned by the fans like Green Bay. Only freaking way.

They spend good money on the team, IMO they do it fairly smart. Most free agent signings were not that bad at the time they were done, when they play they became bad but in the offseason weren't too terrible.

44Grimmace
01-03-2006, 07:38 PM
it depends on if herm stays or leaves. and if he leaves, where does he go? he went to NYJ to play for herm.

ChiefsfaninPA
01-03-2006, 07:40 PM
it depends on if herm stays or leaves. and if he leaves, where does he go? he went to NYJ to play for herm.


What is this n00b referring to?

Logical
01-03-2006, 07:43 PM
Would be a good answer to some of the problems that seem to plague us. We think Dick was too loyal, explain the Hunts loyalty to Peterson. I saw a clip of the Vikes head coach saying he didn't care how much money it cost he was going to improve the team. I never hear that s#$@ coming from our ownership. I think some of us could be laying too much of the blame towards the wrong people. The ownership, in my opinion bears most of it. If the Hunts wanted to win before I die (I am only 24) they need to spend some of that revenue on the team.

There is much to be said for what you are saying, however, I don't believe another owner would keep the Chiefs in KC. Nor do I believe there is a potential owner with enough money in KC to buy the team.

ChiefsCountry
01-03-2006, 07:43 PM
What is this n00b referring to?

ty law, and you dont have much room to talk about the n00b.

Calcountry
01-03-2006, 07:43 PM
I wish we could be more like the Vikings too! All those Superbowl trophies, and consistent over-achieving. sigh...They have a few more conference championships than we do though.

ChiefsfaninPA
01-03-2006, 07:44 PM
ty law, and you dont have much room to talk about the n00b.


Hey, he's a newer n00b. If I can't pick on them I have nothing to live for.

Logical
01-03-2006, 07:46 PM
Look at what that did for Washington? They had to bring a coach who refused to play that way before they made the playoff's.

The pats cut a lot of their players when they seek high prices, and they suck.

Of course luckily we have all that money under the cap every year...Well we were somewhere between 5 and 8 million under the cap in 2004 when we made no significant signings.

ChiefsCountry
01-03-2006, 07:50 PM
Well we were somewhere between 5 and 8 million under the cap in 2004 when we made no significant signings.

Didn't we pay out of lot of bonus though to current players?

ChiefsfaninPA
01-03-2006, 07:57 PM
Didn't we pay out of lot of bonus though to current players?

I think that is most of our cap problems.

chrisdel
01-03-2006, 08:13 PM
The problem with the Chiefs ownership, in my opinion, is a lack of accountability and real motivation. I don't need to go into King Carl's record, but I will say this - 0 playoff victories in 12 seasons would get general managers fired in just about any other team. Now I'll give credit to Carl for making a lot of money for the Hunts, and I'll even admit that he has put competitive teams on the field almost every season. But the Chiefs have used overall regular season sucess as a their standard for success instead of postseason success, and they've patted themselves on their backs too much for mediocrity.

That being said - there are a lot worse owners out there in the NFL and in professional sport. Just look next door to Arrowhead.

Logical
01-03-2006, 08:17 PM
Didn't we pay out of lot of bonus though to current players? The point is we did not spend all our cap money. Lamar is one of the richest owners in the NFL, if he wanted to win bad enough no amount of money would be as far as cash flow since there is a cap.

ChiefsCountry
01-03-2006, 08:17 PM
The problem with the Chiefs ownership, in my opinion, is a lack of accountability and real motivation. I don't need to go into King Carl's record, but I will say this - 0 playoff victories in 12 seasons would get general managers fired in just about any other team. Now I'll give credit to Carl for making a lot of money for the Hunts, and I'll even admit that he has put competitive teams on the field almost every season. But the Chiefs have used overall regular season sucess as a their standard for success instead of postseason success, and they've patted themselves on their backs too much for mediocrity.

That being said - there are a lot worse owners out there in the NFL and in professional sport. Just look next door to Arrowhead.

Regular season success is probally the most accurate way to deterime how good a franchise really is. Playoff teams that win normally have breaks go their way in Billy Beane's Moneyball, he says that. Its catching lighting in a bottle.

Logical
01-03-2006, 08:19 PM
I think that is most of our cap problems.Nope, like I pointed out in 2004 we were between 5 and 8 million under the cap depending on who you believe. Even Carl admitted it, said that Lamar had spent too much cash and did not want to spend more and lower the cash flow.

HMc
01-03-2006, 08:20 PM
I've said this before but distributing a proportion of the revenue in line with team performances would increase the incentives to win.

Halfcan
01-03-2006, 08:23 PM
Yep lets blow the cap away this year-fug the tax-pull a Redskins buying bonanza-then maybe we can be as good as the Vikes.

Fug those cheap azz hunts-let them buy their own stadium. Plus they only put one-ply tolit paper in the johns.,

chrisdel
01-03-2006, 08:25 PM
Regular season success is probally the most accurate way to deterime how good a franchise really is. Playoff teams that win normally have breaks go their way in Billy Beane's Moneyball, he says that. Its catching lighting in a bottle.

True, but just about every team in the NFL has caught a little lightning since our last playoff victory...

Skip Towne
01-03-2006, 08:30 PM
The only way we get better ownership than the Hunt family is if the team was owned by the fans like Green Bay. Only freaking way.

They spend good money on the team, IMO they do it fairly smart. Most free agent signings were not that bad at the time they were done, when they play they became bad but in the offseason weren't too terrible.
The Packers are owned by the city of Green Bay as a corporate entity. Corporatons are no longer allowed to own an NFL team. The Pack is one of a kind. Hard to compare them to the other teams

morphius
01-03-2006, 08:32 PM
Well we were somewhere between 5 and 8 million under the cap in 2004 when we made no significant signings.
1 season out of how many? I knew someone would bring up the one year, but I figured you were smarter then that. :D

ChiefsCountry
01-04-2006, 01:25 AM
The point is we did not spend all our cap money. Lamar is one of the richest owners in the NFL, if he wanted to win bad enough no amount of money would be as far as cash flow since there is a cap.

Actually Lamar isn't that rich. That sounds strange but its the truth, there were quite a few owners on the Fortune 500 list but Hunt wasn't on their, his brother is though.

Wallcrawler
01-04-2006, 01:43 AM
Carl Peterson is a big part of the problem. His dual position with the Chiefs is just one massive conflict of interest.

As Team President, his main concern is the bottom line, and turning a profit.

As General Manager, his main concern is SUPPOSED to be bringing in the best talent available to improve the team each year.


Carl Peterson is a great president. But his skills as a general manager have been found wanting year after year.

The frugal spending, aside from a couple select seasons and the horrific draft record alone are enough to hamper even the greatest of coaches.


We have seen the team spend money recently, but most of those years Carl targetted second tier free agents and bargain basement players as the cream of the crop went to other teams without so much as an offer out of Arrowhead.

Standing pat with the worst defense in the league is probably the biggest screwup in the history of the GM position. Anywhere but KC, Carl Peterson is history after a screwup of such colossal proportions.

tk13
01-04-2006, 01:55 AM
Standing pat with the worst defense in the league is probably the biggest screwup in the history of the GM position. Anywhere but KC, Carl Peterson is history after a screwup of such colossal proportions.

The Colts basically did that for years and years, and now look at them, they're Super Bowl favorites. I still don't think the plan was flawed, it's execution of the plan... hoping guys like Mitchell, Fujita, Sims, Allen, Wesley, Battle, etc, stepped up and developed.

Heck, that's what the Bears did, just drafted a bunch of guys and stuck with them. They were 22nd ranked when Lovie Smith took over. They still don't have a single free agent regular, except for Hunter Hillenmeyer, and he was an rookie FA they developed, and still missed some time this year hurt. I think if you had an issue with that it'd be in player development, not planning, because really what we did that offseason is usually how the best defenses are built.

HMc
01-04-2006, 02:42 AM
The Colts basically did that for years and years, and now look at them, they're Super Bowl favorites. I still don't think the plan was flawed, it's execution of the plan... hoping guys like Mitchell, Fujita, Sims, Allen, Wesley, Battle, etc, stepped up and developed.

Heck, that's what the Bears did, just drafted a bunch of guys and stuck with them. They were 22nd ranked when Lovie Smith took over. They still don't have a single free agent regular, except for Hunter Hillenmeyer, and he was an rookie FA they developed, and still missed some time this year hurt. I think if you had an issue with that it'd be in player development, not planning, because really what we did that offseason is usually how the best defenses are built.

Spot on. There's no accepted guaranteed SB formula that Peterson et al are negligently avoiding, a lot of great teams are made up of merely good players who turned into better players in the team environment. Sometimes it's the coaching, sometimes it's undeveloped potential, a lot of the time there's a large luck component.

philfree
01-04-2006, 02:56 AM
It would be interesting to see how much profit Lamar Hunt has made since he started his own league and then merged that with the old NFL. I've heard it said that at one point he was $100mil in the hole. IMO if at this point the Chiefs are turning a profit Lamar deserves to enjoy it. Also I saw posted here at the Planet that the Chiefs showed $33mil profit in....2003 or 2004. Considering what the signing bonuses are these days for a top FA $33mil just ain't that much. Lamar has spent plenty of money since Carl has been here in an effort to win a Championship. It ain't panned out....yet. Also IMO it's smart to leave a little wiggle room under the cap for the unexpected.

PhilFree:arrow: