PDA

View Full Version : Posnanski: Longing for Martyball


tk13
01-05-2006, 02:24 AM
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/13551859.htm

Longing for Martyball

Maybe Peterson believes Edwards can rekindle glory

JOE POSNANSKI

From the start, Iíve thought that Chiefs president/CEO/general manager/cruise director Carl Peterson would try to hire Herman Edwards to be coach. It just makes too much sense. Peterson loves Edwards. They go back more than 25 years. Peterson tried to recruit Edwards to UCLA. He signed Edwards as a pro player. He hired Edwards to work as a scout. He persuaded Edwards to go into coaching. He helped Edwards get the head-coaching job in New York.

When Peterson hired Dick Vermeil, he hired someone who had been like a father to him. Hiring Herm Edwards would be like hiring something close to a son.

But thereís something else at work here, too, something you canít help but notice if you listen to Peterson talk. He has grown tired of the roller coaster. He has grown tired of 38-37 games. He has grown tired of winning seasons followed by losing seasons followed by winning seasons. You couldnít miss it on Tuesday, when Peterson was challenged by a pointed question: With the way the Chiefsí offense has played the last five years, how could you hire anyone but offensive coordinator Al Saunders?

Peterson was not too crazy about the tone of the question. He bounced around a little bit, talked about the NFL minority-hiring policy, talked about how he knows Al Saundersí strengths and weaknesses. And then he said this: ďThere are other considerations more than just the offensive side of the football.Ē

Hereís what I thought: Carl Peterson really misses Marty.

It isnít the first time that Marty nostalgia has popped up either.

Peterson misses the Marty Schottenheimer 1990s, when the Chiefs always won 10 or more games and always made the playoffs. True, to many Chiefs fans, that was the age of frustration, years most remembered for heartbreaking playoff losses and grinding 17-14 punt-fests. But to Peterson, those years were heaven.

And I think he believes Herm Edwards can take the Chiefs back to heaven.

See, this is what you have to understand about Peterson: The man hates losing. People always seem to miss this. Peterson hates losing football games as much as anyone in the NFL. Put it this way: He probably hates losing games more than you do.

That disgust for losing has been the driving force behind Peterson and the Chiefs for 17 years. It is why the Chiefs have averaged about 10 victories per season over that time. It is why, unlike almost every other team in the NFL, the Chiefs have never been thoroughly awful on Petersonís watch.

Best winning percentages since 1989:
1. San Francisco, .618
2. Pittsburgh, .613
3. Denver, .610
4. Kansas City, .594
5. Green Bay, .588.

Now you will point out that, unlike the other four teams on the list, the Chiefs have not made the Super Bowl in that time. Well, thatís a whole different argument. Iím talking about winning and losing games. Here ó let me try and prove to you that Carl Peterson cares more about winning games than you do. Iíll make you an offer. You have two choices:

1. The Chiefs can win 10 or 11 games each of the next five years and make the playoffs, but they probably will not go to the Super Bowl.

2. The Chiefs will win the Super Bowl once in the next five years, guaranteed, but the other four years they will go 3-13.

Now, which of those options would you take? I donít know you very well, but Iím guessing you might take Option 2 ó you would take four bad years for one Super Bowl championship. It has been so long for this town. Weíre all dying for the title. I asked nine people ó all nine took the Super Bowl win. I would take Option 2.

Thatís where Carl Petersonís different. He would, almost without any doubt, take Option 1. He would not trade all those losses for one Super Bowl championship. No way. Winning and losing games matter to him too much. Winning is good business. Heíd take the double-digit victories every year and take his chances in the playoffs.

Thatís what the Marty Schottenheimer days were all about. Good business. The Chiefs made the playoffs seven of eight years, they gave up the fewest points twice, they ran the ball down peopleís throats, they had the best record in the AFC twice, they were as reliable as a Maytag. Peterson liked that. He tried to keep that metronome going with Gunther Cunningham, but things changed, Derrick died, the metronome stopped.

So, Peterson went with his old friend, a Super Bowl coach, Dick Vermeil, and for five years it was a high-wire act, passes flying everywhere, scoreboards lighting up, touchdown dances galore. Everybody bet the over. Every game was exciting. But the Chiefs finished 6-10 one year, the worst record in the Peterson era. They had another losing season. They made the playoffs only once ó that now makes it one playoff appearance in eight years. And I think, toward the end especially, Peterson, like George Jetson, wanted to get off this crazy thing.

Thatís why I think he will, if at all possible, hire Herm Edwards. Letís face it: Thereís nothing about Edwards that gets your heart racing. He has a losing record with the Jets. He has never coached a team to more than 10 wins. He has won a couple of playoff games ó two more than the Chiefs have in the last decade ó but he is probably best remembered for the way his Jets went into a Robert Novak conservative shell in the final minutes last season in Pittsburgh and lost a playoff game they had won.

There are good things, too. The Jets did make the playoffs three times in five years ó no Jets coach before had made the playoffs three times. Edwardsí players swear by him. They play hard for him. Terrific coaches like Tony Dungy, Bill Cowher and, yes, Schottenheimer, say that Edwards is one of the brightest coaches in the game. Give him a running game (Larry Johnson) and defensive talent (the Chiefs seem to have some), and he might very well do good things.

There are some other interesting choices out there. Bob Stoops has been amazing at Oklahoma. Butch Davis was dreadful in Cleveland, but he was a big winner in college, too. Jim Fassel went to a Super Bowl with the Giants. And, hey, Al Saunders has, in fact, engineered the leagueís highest-scoring offense the last four years.

But in the end, I think, Peterson wants stability. He wants to go back to the 1990s. He canít hire Marty Schottenheimer again. Herm Edwards looks like the next-best thing.

grandllama
01-05-2006, 02:27 AM
so god damned it, hire Marty instead of Hermie...

Chiefs Pantalones
01-05-2006, 02:28 AM
Herm better not freakin' touch the offense if he comes here.

Rausch
01-05-2006, 02:32 AM
Rausch's reason for liking Edwards: he's got that "**** you, we WILL get it done" attitude.

Love that. LOVE IT.

**** you, we're hiring Edwards...

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 02:37 AM
Germ Edwards is anything but stable.

He flies off the handle if you ask a negative question at a press conference.

Also...

Winning is good business.

Yup. Peterson would rather have butts in the seats for 5 years straight, which is what winning 10 or 11 games every year means.

F*ck you, Carl.

Wallcrawler
01-05-2006, 05:55 AM
Germ Edwards is anything but stable.

He flies off the handle if you ask a negative question at a press conference.





I was unaware that press conferences affected on-field performance, which is the subject of discussion.


As for getting pissed off at a reporter asking a remedial question, big f'in deal. These guys are paid to dig and ask annoying, stupid f'ing questions to a guy who has just lost a game and is in a bad frame of mind, and they are always asked with the sole purpose of getting a good sound byte.

I dont know how some of these coaches display the restraint that they have towards some of these jackasses, and in terms of overall coaches, Herm Edwards' press conferences are pretty tame in comparison to the likes of guys like Mike Ditka or Jim Mora Sr.

If Herm is unstable, then guys like Ditka and Mora are pure section eight.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 05:59 AM
I was unaware that press conferences affected on-field performance, which is the subject of discussion.

I was directly addressing the notion that Germ Edwards is "stable."


As for getting pissed off at a reporter asking a remedial question, big f'in deal. These guys are paid to dig and ask annoying, stupid f'ing questions to a guy who has just lost a game and is in a bad frame of mind, and they are always asked with the sole purpose of getting a good sound byte.


Definitely not always true. And it doesn't take much for Germ to fly off the handle. I'm betting he will do it at his FIRST Chiefs press conference.

It's called being a professional.

Wallcrawler
01-05-2006, 06:29 AM
I was directly addressing the notion that Germ Edwards is "stable."



Definitely not always true. And it doesn't take much for Germ to fly off the handle. I'm betting he will do it at his FIRST Chiefs press conference.

It's called being a professional.


Youre serious?

I guess then, that all of the great coaches who have ever coached and gotten pissed off at a member of the media for acting like a tard, they were all unprofessional?

Well, I have to admit this is some pretty funny stuff here. All I can say is that if it bothers you that much, turn the channel when the press conferences start.

There's nitpicking, and then there is this. Congratulations, youve set the bar another notch higher.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 06:43 AM
I guess then, that all of the great coaches who have ever coached and gotten pissed off at a member of the media for acting like a tard, they were all unprofessional?


I don't care about here and there. Everyone does it.

Edwards does it CONSTANTLY. And usually for no good reason, not because the reporter was being a "tard."

I am guessing he can't handle criticism. And anything he perceives as criticism, even if it's not....BOOM! The Herm-Bomb gets dropped.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 06:48 AM
From the NY Post:

Well, Edwards is soon to be Kansas City's problem. He will galvanize the Chiefs' locker room, of that there is little doubt. He will give the radio guys some wonderful sound bytes, and every now and again he'll show up on the local 6 o'clock news giving one of his revivalist homilies, the kind that usually came right on the heels of someone daring to criticize him or his team a little too fervently.

the Talking Can
01-05-2006, 06:55 AM
I'm feeling sick.

He's exactly right...Herm Schottenhiemer is about mediocrity.

philfree
01-05-2006, 06:55 AM
Hereís what I thought: Carl Peterson really misses Marty.

I'm a Marty fan but I call :BS: ......Carl want's to win it all and Marty was Carl's choice after DV said no. Carl will miss DV way more then Marty but what/who he misses the the most is #58. Allen is great but the untimely demise of DT is haunting for Carl and Gun. Marty probably too..........Alot of years have passed but some scars take along time to heal. Who wears their seatbelt because of DT? DT can't be replaced but.........Carl ain't missing Marty at this point.

One of JoPos rare schuds.


PhilFree:arrow:

the Talking Can
01-05-2006, 06:56 AM
"Thatís where Carl Petersonís different. He would, almost without any doubt, take Option 1. He would not trade all those losses for one Super Bowl championship. No way."


bingo....no risk, reward...

Wallcrawler
01-05-2006, 06:56 AM
Well, even your own quote there gochiefs says he doesnt do it CONSTANTLY.

Besides, I think its funny. These reporters are just asking for it when they say the things that they say. Then they have the nerve to write up their column saying how shocked and offended they are that Herm "dropped a Herm Bomb" ROFL on them as you put it, neglecting to add in there what asinine crap they said to warrant such a response.

Basicly my view is if you dont want the answer, dont ask the question. If you dont want a rebuttal, dont make the statement.

But also for the record, I LOVED ALL of Jim Mora Sr's press conferences after losses. maybe its just me. I think that kind of stuff is funny and entertaining. If the team is going to lose, I might as well get something out of it.

I could see myself doing the same thing. Some jackass who doesnt have a clue as to what's going on making criticisms and insinuations....yeah, Id probably let them have it too, professional or unprofessional, I could really give a rats ass.

If you cant stand the heat, get out of the conference room. Heh.

Its also probably one of the main reasons players love him so much as well. Let someone criticize them, and he stands up for them.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 06:59 AM
See, that's just the thing. Sometimes someone would ask an innocent question and he'd explode over it.

I don't like it, and it doesn't endear him to the fans in the least.

siberian khatru
01-05-2006, 06:59 AM
Thatís where Carl Petersonís different. He would, almost without any doubt, take Option 1. He would not trade all those losses for one Super Bowl championship. No way. Winning and losing games matter to him too much.

This is why Carl and I will never get along.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 08:06 AM
Look at this. Innocent question. Herm lost it.


The Jets were 2-5, seemingly out of hope, and a reporter asked Herman Edwards if he was worried about players giving up.

The question was posed by Kit Stier, the beat writer from the Westchester Journal-News, and it set off an emotional diatribe that became a defining moment for Edwards and the Jets. Who could forget Edwards' reply?

"That's the great thing about sports: You play to win the game," he said, offended by the mere suggestion that his team was on the verge of quitting. "Hello? You play to win the game!"

the Talking Can
01-05-2006, 08:08 AM
Look at this. Innocent question. Herm lost it.

that equals "losing it?"

not a very high bar...

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 08:08 AM
that equals "losing it?"

not a very high bar...

Are you kidding me? That shit made ESPN. He definitely lost it.

the Talking Can
01-05-2006, 08:09 AM
Are you kidding me? That shit made ESPN. He definitely lost it.

You play to win the game = losing it?

ok....

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 08:11 AM
You play to win the game = losing it?

ok....

It wasn't what he said, it was how he said it. I guess you missed it. It's infamous among Jets fans.

the Talking Can
01-05-2006, 08:12 AM
It wasn't what he said, it was how he said it. I guess you missed it. It's infamous among Jets fans.

how could I miss such an epic meltdown?

right up there with Dean...

jidar
01-05-2006, 08:18 AM
Who the **** cares about press conferences? Nobody.
I know I don't care what he does in press conferences.
Hell, if he shits in his hand and throws it at the reporters I still don't care so long as he's winning on the field.

the Talking Can
01-05-2006, 08:19 AM
Who the **** cares about press conferences? Nobody.
I know I don't care what he does in press conferences.
Hell, if he shits in his hand and throws it at the reporters I still don't care so long as he's winning on the field.

no, you don't get it...it was "infamous" to the Jet's equivelant of NEPA...

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 08:23 AM
This article makes me ill...

I dont want to return to the days of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, 2 runs a pass and a punt, inability to get a first down to kill the clock, punting to give the ball back to the other team and 'putting it on the defense'.

That was 10 horrible years of football. Making the playoffs means nothing.

Extra Point
01-05-2006, 08:23 AM
I see the Chiefs going 3-13 WITHOUT winning the Super Bowl with Edwards.

If you play to win, then first get your team to play. Edwards can't do that, and that's the whole problem.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't more Super Bowls been won with former offensive coordinators as head coaches?

Skip Towne
01-05-2006, 08:24 AM
It wasn't what he said, it was how he said it. I guess you missed it. It's infamous among Jets fans.
Your and idiot.

the Talking Can
01-05-2006, 08:25 AM
This article makes me ill...

I dont want to return to the days of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, 2 runs a pass and a punt, inability to get a first down to kill the clock, punting to give the ball back to the other team and 'putting it on the defense'.

That was 10 horrible years of football. Making the playoffs means nothing.

yes, but CP remembers it fondly....

stevieray
01-05-2006, 08:33 AM
It's called being a professional.

get and hold down a job before you call others unprofessional.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 08:34 AM
get and hold down a job before you call others unprofessional.

Your paintings are pretty unprofessional. I think they blow.

But don't worry, you make a great "Professional Fan."

MOhillbilly
01-05-2006, 08:43 AM
IMO the 2nd coming will happen before Mr.Peterson has a superbowl championship.

stevieray
01-05-2006, 09:13 AM
Your paintings are pretty unprofessional. I think they blow.

But don't worry, you make a great "Professional Fan."

I do make a great "professional" fan, it's not often you can take something so simple and use it to help others.

You can rip on my talent all you want, it must hurt to be on the sideline dogging those actually in the game.

Brock
01-05-2006, 09:16 AM
Your paintings are pretty unprofessional. I think they blow.

But don't worry, you make a great "Professional Fan."

Coming from Chiefsplanet's biggest loser, I think Steve should take that as a compliment.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 09:16 AM
I do make a great "professional" fan


ROFL

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 09:19 AM
You can rip on my talent all you want, it must hurt to be on the sideline dogging those actually in the game.

My sources say you know jack shit about me.

stevieray
01-05-2006, 09:24 AM
My sources say you know jack shit about me.

Here's to you.. mister freeloading chiefsplanet is my life loser.

:clap:

sorry, I can't stay. I have to go to work, you have fun being a professional bb poster.

MOhillbilly
01-05-2006, 09:24 AM
My sources say you know jack shit about me.

your f#g*g-otry has reached monumental heights.


it pisses me off we cant say fag-thats so ****ing weak!!

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 09:25 AM
your pillowbiterry has reached monumental heights.

Exactly. I'm pretty sure stevieray doesn't know just how high.

htismaqe
01-05-2006, 09:31 AM
I don't care about here and there. Everyone does it.

Edwards does it CONSTANTLY. And usually for no good reason, not because the reporter was being a "tard."

I am guessing he can't handle criticism. And anything he perceives as criticism, even if it's not....BOOM! The Herm-Bomb gets dropped.

Sounds like Bill Parcells...

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 09:32 AM
sorry, I can't stay.

Sweet. Get the hell out of here.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 09:33 AM
Sounds like Bill Parcells...

Yeah, although Bill has softened in his old age. Now he just turns it into a joke most of the time.

ptlyon
01-05-2006, 09:33 AM
This article makes me ill...

I dont want to return to the days of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, 2 runs a pass and a punt, inability to get a first down to kill the clock, punting to give the ball back to the other team and 'putting it on the defense'.

That was 10 horrible years of football. Making the playoffs means nothing.

That there is the definition of "Martyocrity"

Nick Athan
01-05-2006, 09:33 AM
IMO the 2nd coming will happen before Mr.Peterson has a superbowl championship.


This is a man with respect. Always, call Mr. Peterson:; mr. Peterson. It is what we all do that our allowed press passes.

htismaqe
01-05-2006, 09:34 AM
get and hold down a job before you call others unprofessional.

He has a job...he's an outside sales and marketing rep for Warpaint Illustrated...his territory is ChiefsPlanet.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 09:36 AM
He has a job...he's and outside sales and marketing rep for Warpaint Illustrated...his territory is ChiefsPlanet.

ROFL

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 09:43 AM
This article makes me ill...

I dont want to return to the days of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, 2 runs a pass and a punt, inability to get a first down to kill the clock, punting to give the ball back to the other team and 'putting it on the defense'.

That was 10 horrible years of football. Making the playoffs means nothing.
Here it comes back again. If the 10 years of Marty were horrible, they were the best we've gotten out of the Chiefs in my lifetime, which is a pretty sad commentary.
I'm all for offensive productivity and creativity, but give me a defense you can rely on week in week out over a defense that's an embarassment to the entire concept of the game, seasoned with some thrilling propensity to toss some wacky balls-out play on offense at the end of the game in the hopes of scritching out a W.
Ooh, Posno found two or three instances where some QB called a surpise pass and instead of running the clock on a run, they ran the clock on a pass then kneel-downs. How exciting. Maybe we should go all-out and recruit someone who'll urge our QB to get really crazy and throw some J.George/Jake the Snake left-handed pass to nowhere that gives the entire league chuckle.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 09:48 AM
Here it comes back again. If the 10 years of Marty were horrible, they were the best we've gotten out of the Chiefs in my lifetime, which is a pretty sad commentary.
I'm all for offensive productivity and creativity, but give me a defense you can rely on week in week out over a defense that's an embarassment to the entire concept of the game, seasoned with some thrilling propensity to toss some wacky balls-out play on offense at the end of the game in the hopes of scritching out a W....

They were only the 'best' because for a brief 2 year period we had an offense (read quarterback) that succeeded DESPITE of Marty. That's the ONLY reason you can say anything good about those Marty years.

Short of that, it was: run, run punt...get scored on early and have no way of scoring points in return. As long as the game of football is won by scoring points, I will allways prefer offense to defense.

The DV years were the exact converse of the Marty years. It wasnt much fun either, but going back to the Marty years of all D and no O, just flat sucks.

Inspector
01-05-2006, 09:48 AM
"He probably hates losing games more than you do."

Uh...I don't think so. Especially based on some of his decisiosn over the years. IMO

FringeNC
01-05-2006, 09:48 AM
After reading this article, and the fact that Al Saunders didn't get the job, makes me scared that we may actually dump this offense.

KChiefs1
01-05-2006, 09:51 AM
http://doi.contentdirections.com/mr/mgh.jsp?doi=10.1036/0071445099

KChiefs1
01-05-2006, 09:58 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/nfl/12/07/bc.fbn.jets.edwards.ap/


"We're doing the best we can do. It sounds real good, 'Open it up, go for broke, go do this, and go do that," he said. "That gives you the best chance of getting blown out in a game, trying to play that way. It's not like you throw caution to the wind. Go out there, run double reverses, trick plays. We're not some circus team."Maybe we're all dumb coaches. That's fine. That doesn't bother me."

htismaqe
01-05-2006, 10:01 AM
Baby Lee and Titus,

Why can't we have BOTH?

I think Carl maybe has finally realized that you can't win it all without BALANCE.

I have every reason to believe right now that a guy like Herm can bring back the hard-nosed defensive attitude of Marty and still recognize that you don't just scrap an offense like ours...

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 10:03 AM
I have every reason to believe right now that a guy like Herm can bring back the hard-nosed defensive attitude of Marty and still recognize that you don't just scrap an offense like ours...

Donnie Henderson might.

From the Jets board:

Herm has never called or installed a defense in his life, and when he got to the Jets he tried to run the defense that he was a part of in Tampa, where Monty Kiffin is a genius. It failed miserably because there was never the personnel here to run it. We had man-cover corners and run-stopping LB's. Herm didn't see fit to play to their strengths, instead trying to fit square pegs into round holes. It was abysmal.

I believe we were top 10 D the year before he took over, and took steps back in 2001 & 2002, despite playoff appearances. Our D never really improved under him. The first half of the 2001 season was a disaster on defense. The D never really looked strong against strong offenses on a consistent basis. 2004 they played well, but they also played alot of weak offenses. IMO, he's not really an Xs and Os guy. He's never been a coordinator. He just leads the bunch, and [should] let his coordinators handle the Xs & Os. It's his best chance at success. He's not a bad coach, but strategy is not exactly his strongest suit.

He hired someone to turn the defense around after hiring the wrong one initially. I liked Herm for most of the time he was here, but he really did more to set our defense back than he did to improve it here... this is in reference to the expectations I had when I first heard we were hiring a "Defensive-minded HC".

oldandslow
01-05-2006, 10:04 AM
Here it comes back again. If the 10 years of Marty were horrible, they were the best we've gotten out of the Chiefs in my lifetime, which is a pretty sad commentary.
I'm all for offensive productivity and creativity, but give me a defense you can rely on week in week out over a defense that's an embarassment to the entire concept of the game, seasoned with some thrilling propensity to toss some wacky balls-out play on offense at the end of the game in the hopes of scritching out a W.
Ooh, Posno found two or three instances where some QB called a surpise pass and instead of running the clock on a run, they ran the clock on a pass then kneel-downs. How exciting. Maybe we should go all-out and recruit someone who'll urge our QB to get really crazy and throw some J.George/Jake the Snake left-handed pass to nowhere that gives the entire league chuckle.


Thank you, BL. Larry Johnson and a great defense will get you much further in this league than scoring 30 and giving up 32.

And for everyone's information - you have to GET to the playoffs before you can win a SB.

I welcome the Herm era.

MOhillbilly
01-05-2006, 10:04 AM
Baby Lee and Titus,

Why can't we have BOTH?

I think Carl maybe has finally realized that you can't win it all without BALANCE.

I have every reason to believe right now that a guy like Herm can bring back the hard-nosed defensive attitude of Marty and still recognize that you don't just scrap an offense like ours...

Who is cometent enough to take over as OC in your opinion Htis????

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 10:06 AM
Baby Lee and Titus,

Why can't we have BOTH?

I think Carl maybe has finally realized that you can't win it all without BALANCE.

I have every reason to believe right now that a guy like Herm can bring back the hard-nosed defensive attitude of Marty and still recognize that you don't just scrap an offense like ours...

I sure hope so...If he can keep the O and rebuild the D, I'd be happy.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 10:07 AM
And for everyone's information - you have to GET to the playoffs before you can win a SB.

And in Marty's case, not even that is good enough.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 10:08 AM
More:


emphatically - herm, nor anyone post - parcells "built the jets defense"

in 2001 - the jets had the proverbial leftovers from parcells and some young studs ther with ellis and abe

herm installed his version of the cover 2 and pretty sealed the fate of the defense under cottrell for the next 2 years - they had their moments but it would lead to an overhaul after only 2 years....

then they try to re-tool the defensive line, secondary and linebacking core - mostly with middle round picks and second tier FA's - something that very risky - especially when you should be building your unit around 2 potential pro-bowl DE's.....

henderson comes in, vilma comes in, drob comes in and the defense definitely steps it up in aggressiveness, creativity and overall tallent...

however, IMO, they still have the ability to build a super-unit by keeping abe, getting a stud NT and a stud corner. - these are annual issues that just won't go away.

To give edwards credit for building a defense is very short sighted and frankly not correct.....

the 2 best moves that were made under his watch was the drafting of vilma and the hiring of henderson. in 5 years that is a very short list.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 10:10 AM
More:

Are these posts from NYJ geniouses (chiefsplanet spelling)? If so, I take it with a grain of salt.

htismaqe
01-05-2006, 10:11 AM
Donnie Henderson might.

From the Jets board:

On the first quote, I like it. I WANT someone to come in here and run their scheme instead of pussifying it to fit the losers we have here now, which is basically what Gunther did. I really want to see us switch to the Kiffin cover 2, so this is actually music to my ears.

On the second quote, I don't care he's never been a coordinator. He's not gonna call the plays, his defensive coordinator is. He has, however, played defense, coached a defensive position, and scouted defensive players in his career. I like all of those things.

On the third quote, I don't really know what to say.

It's simple for me:

Herm Edwards is most likely gonna be our coach. I might as well get used to the idea. I'm at least gonna enjoy it like I did the first 2 or 3 years of Vermeil -- until he either wins it all or proves he can't.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 10:12 AM
Are these posts from NYJ geniouses (chiefsplanet spelling)? If so, I take it with a grain of salt.

They are from Jets fans. Most of the posts I am quoting seem factually accurate and educated.

For instance, I didn't feel the need to quote this one:

build what defense? our defense BLOWS! they were bitch slapped all year long. screww the stats this year. they couldn't stop anybody when it counted. WHAT DEFENSE did herm build?

FringeNC
01-05-2006, 10:12 AM
Thank you, BL. Larry Johnson and a great defense will get you much further in this league than scoring 30 and giving up 32.

And for everyone's information - you have to GET to the playoffs before you can win a SB.

I welcome the Herm era.

A great D is great. Where's it gonna come from? The brain trust of Herman Edwards and Gunther Cunningham? Yeah, right.

siberian khatru
01-05-2006, 10:13 AM
All joking about Carl aside, I just cannot comprehend the stubborn arrogance of wanting to scrap this offense.

I can see playing more maulball (which is NOT Martyball, and yes I know keg disagrees with that) -- less shifting and trickery, but still plenty of play-action passing set up by a fabulous running back.

But otherwise, I just can't imagine someone coming in and thinking "we're going to scale it back and have 10 plays in the playbook, 9 of which are runs up the middle." I think any new coach would look at this job as: "The offense is SB-caliber right now; I'm not gonna waste time changing that. I'm gonna focus exclusively on the defense. I can win immediately with this team if I fix the defense."

Maybe I'm just naive.

htismaqe
01-05-2006, 10:13 AM
Who is cometent enough to take over as OC in your opinion Htis????

I'm hoping Mike Solari gets a shot.

1) He knows this offense.

2) He's an offensive line coach, so he might have a better appreciation for doing what it takes to win games when you can't put up gawdy passing stats.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 10:13 AM
They are from Jets fans. Most of the posts I am quoting seem factually accurate and educated.

Pass the salt, then.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 10:14 AM
I really want to see us switch to the Kiffin cover 2, so this is actually music to my ears.


Uh...and you think we have the personnel for it?

I certainly don't think our defensive line can handle rushing the quarterback all by themselves.

htismaqe
01-05-2006, 10:14 AM
More:

If getting Vilma and hiring Henderson were his best moves, it seems he started righting the ship about the same time as they decided they didn't want him anymore.

That to me says we're getting him at the BEST possible time.

htismaqe
01-05-2006, 10:15 AM
Uh...and you think we have the personnel for it?

I certainly don't think our defensive line can handle rushing the quarterback all by themselves.

No, we absolutely DO NOT have the personnel for it.

We need to GET the personnel for it, instead of pussifying the scheme to fit the losers we have.

If they don't fit, CUT THEM.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 10:16 AM
Herm Edwards is most likely gonna be our coach. I might as well get used to the idea. I'm at least gonna enjoy it like I did the first 2 or 3 years of Vermeil -- until he either wins it all or proves he can't.

Im right there as well...it's just that this article scared the crap out of me.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 10:16 AM
Pass the salt, then.

Well, I don't know where else to find detailed information on the Jets from observers.

I certainly know the last BB I went to to mine information from was correct (Dolphins board on Surtain).

htismaqe
01-05-2006, 10:16 AM
Siberian,

Herm isn't stupid, neither is Carl. Stubborn maybe? Hell yeah.

They may scale down the offense some, but NOBODY is gonna come in here and scrap the most feared offense in the league.

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 10:16 AM
They were only the 'best' because for a brief 2 year period we had an offense (read quarterback) that succeeded DESPITE of Marty. That's the ONLY reason you can say anything good about those Marty years.

Short of that, it was: run, run punt...get scored on early and have no way of scoring points in return. As long as the game of football is won by scoring points, I will allways prefer offense to defense.

The DV years were the exact converse of the Marty years. It wasnt much fun either, but going back to the Marty years of all D and no O, just flat sucks.
Why do people continue to harbor the belief that if a lie is repeated enough, it'll someday transform into truth. Marty's offenses weren't as good as we've had in the past 4 years, but it wasn't bottom of the barrel either. And it certainly wasn't historically, epically, mythically embarassing like our defense has been.
You've taken the trauma of a couple of, admittedly traumatic, playoff games and expanded them into the entirety of a decade of Chiefs play, and it's not an accurate summation.

nychief
01-05-2006, 10:18 AM
All joking about Carl aside, I just cannot comprehend the stubborn arrogance of wanting to scrap this offense.

I can see playing more maulball (which is NOT Martyball, and yes I know keg disagrees with that) -- less shifting and trickery, but still plenty of play-action passing set up by a fabulous running back.

But otherwise, I just can't imagine someone coming in and thinking "we're going to scale it back and have 10 plays in the playbook, 9 of which are runs up the middle." I think any new coach would look at this job as: "The offense is SB-caliber right now; I'm not gonna waste time changing that. I'm gonna focus exclusively on the defense. I can win immediately with this team if I fix the defense."

Maybe I'm just naive.



I think it would be foolish to assume that he is going to scrap the offense just because he is not going to hire Saunders. I mean hell, DV was not known as an offensive genius before a his first few years in St. Louis - those Eagles teams where not the greatest show on turf. I think to assume that Herm is set on a three runs and a punt offense is a little premature.

Messier
01-05-2006, 10:25 AM
The offense will stay the same if only because of Trent Green. He could probably coach the coaches on how to run this.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 10:26 AM
Well, I don't know where else to find detailed information on the Jets from observers.

I certainly know the last BB I went to to mine information from was correct (Dolphins board on Surtain).

You're getting 'info' from people who sit in the stands. If their fans are anything like us, all information comes biased.

Forgive me if I dont jump on it as gospel at the onset.

You've already positioned yourself as one who advocates against hiring Edwards, so naturally, you're finding posts that support your position.

htismaqe
01-05-2006, 10:28 AM
Why do people continue to harbor the belief that if a lie is repeated enough, it'll someday transform into truth. Marty's offenses weren't as good as we've had in the past 4 years, but it wasn't bottom of the barrel either. And it certainly wasn't historically, epically, mythically embarassing like our defense has been.
You've taken the trauma of a couple of, admittedly traumatic, playoff games and expanded them into the entirety of a decade of Chiefs play, and it's not an accurate summation.

It wasn't his offense.

It was his offensive playcalling in the playoffs.

The only year he didn't do it, we had Joe Montana.

I think Marty has/had serious "can't trust my QB not to throw the game away" issues...

tomahawk kid
01-05-2006, 10:31 AM
It wasn't his offense.

It was his offensive playcalling in the playoffs.

The only year he didn't do it, we had Joe Montana.

I think Marty has/had serious "can't trust my QB not to throw the game away" issues...

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Marty try to throw the ball all over the field in the 1995 playoff game against the Colts?

IIRC, he REFUSED to run the ball in a 10-7 ballgame.

The net result was 3 Bono picks and all those FG misses.

Someone keep me honest here if I'm wrong.

Brock
01-05-2006, 10:32 AM
Why do people continue to harbor the belief that if a lie is repeated enough, it'll someday transform into truth. Marty's offenses weren't as good as we've had in the past 4 years, but it wasn't bottom of the barrel either. And it certainly wasn't historically, epically, mythically embarassing like our defense has been.
You've taken the trauma of a couple of, admittedly traumatic, playoff games and expanded them into the entirety of a decade of Chiefs play, and it's not an accurate summation.

Marty wasn't a bad coach. He had just been here too long. An organization has to change up every few years, or it goes stale.

In SD, if they really want to win a Super Bowl, they would change coaches right now.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 10:33 AM
Why do people continue to harbor the belief that if a lie is repeated enough, it'll someday transform into truth. Marty's offenses weren't as good as we've had in the past 4 years, but it wasn't bottom of the barrel either. And it certainly wasn't historically, epically, mythically embarassing like our defense has been.
You've taken the trauma of a couple of, admittedly traumatic, playoff games and expanded them into the entirety of a decade of Chiefs play, and it's not an accurate summation.

Are you kidding me? I lead the charge in repeating lies long enough, to make them urban legends. Ive been working on one for a number of years.

Rather than bog down in the minutae of statistical analysis of whether ot not Marty's offenses were 'good' versus 'bad', it was embarrassing like our defense has been especially when KC needed to score points to win the game.

There's no myth to the fact that Marty played 'not to lose' and would settle for the FG or glady give away the football in critical times and put it on his defense (the great mythical defense) which you crumble come crunch time (kind of like our offense of today). Marty does that to this day.

Was the playoff flame out of 2003 any worse than the playoff flame outs of 1995 or 1997--hell no.

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 10:34 AM
It wasn't his offense.

It was his offensive playcalling in the playoffs.

The only year he didn't do it, we had Joe Montana.

I think Marty has/had serious "can't trust my QB not to throw the game away" issues...
This article makes me ill...

I dont want to return to the days of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, 2 runs a pass and a punt, inability to get a first down to kill the clock, punting to give the ball back to the other team and 'putting it on the defense'.

That was 10 horrible years of football. Making the playoffs means nothing.
___________________

They were only the 'best' because for a brief 2 year period we had an offense (read quarterback) that succeeded DESPITE of Marty. That's the ONLY reason you can say anything good about those Marty years.

Short of that, it was: run, run punt...get scored on early and have no way of scoring points in return. As long as the game of football is won by scoring points, I will allways prefer offense to defense.

The DV years were the exact converse of the Marty years. It wasnt much fun either, but going back to the Marty years of all D and no O, just flat sucks.
Where does this mention playoffs? Looks like someone's commenting on the entire 10 years to me. Further, he's comparing Marty years to Vermeil years, . . . so the playoffs are pretty much irrelevant as a comparison point.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 10:36 AM
You've already positioned yourself as one who advocates against hiring Edwards, so naturally, you're finding posts that support your position.

That's damn near ALL THERE IS. 95% of the people can't be wrong.

You got anywhere ELSE to find info?

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 10:42 AM
Was the playoff flame out of 2003 any worse than the playoff flame outs of 1995 or 1997--hell no.
The 2003 loss wasn't a flame out. It was a foregone conclusion. They played exactly the style they'd displayed to that point, as well as that style could be played, and it was shown to be fatally flawed.
The 95 and 97 were flame-outs. They were out of character. 95 was a throw-a-pooloza on a bitterly cold and windy day with a HoF RB on idle. 97 was a still healing QB not ready to put up points, and Gonzo getting jobbed in the EZ.
My defense of the Marty years isn't about lauding those flame-outs, it's about remining people there actually were 170 some-odd other games played, most of them very very well.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 10:45 AM
The 2003 loss wasn't a flame out. It was a foregone conclusion. They played exactly the style they'd displayed to that point, as well as that style could be played, and it was shown to be fatally flawed.
The 95 and 97 were flame-outs. They were out of character. 95 was a throw-a-pooloza on a bitterly cold and windy day with a HoF RB on idle. 97 was a still healing QB not ready to put up points, and Gonzo getting jobbed in the EZ.
My defense of the Marty years isn't about lauding those flame-outs, it's about remining people there actually were 170 some-odd other games played, most of them very very well.

Semantics aside, the loss was just another first round exit like the others. 95 and 97 can be directly attributed to coaches decisions--passing instead of running or starting the wrong QB and you want to go back to that.

Sorry, I dont.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 10:47 AM
That's damn near ALL THERE IS. 95% of the people can't be wrong.

You got anywhere ELSE to find info?

I dont find it suprising after this last year that 95% of the NYJ fans think Edwards is a bad coach. Fans have the attention span of average 4 year olds when it comes to their coach/team.

Again, forgive me for not believing a bunch of disgruntled fans after a 4-12 season or whatever they were.

siberian khatru
01-05-2006, 10:47 AM
Rather than bog down in the minutae of statistical analysis of whether ot not Marty's offenses were 'good' versus 'bad', it was embarrassing like our defense has been especially when KC needed to score points to win the game.


I remember it being more "frustrating" than "embarassing." Well, except for the 1992 playoff shutout loss at SD. That was embarassing.

This D has sickened me. It's been off-the-charts bad. The Marty O just depressed me. It was just sluggish as hell.

However, the bottom-line results were the same: No playoff wins, no SB. Point being, we've had one-sided teams for 17 years.

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 11:29 AM
Semantics aside, the loss was just another first round exit like the others. 95 and 97 can be directly attributed to coaches decisions--passing instead of running or starting the wrong QB and you want to go back to that.

Sorry, I dont.
Salient distinctions are not semantics. But I can understand you wanting to broaden the proposition to the point that it carries no impact.
Both were 1st round exits, but one was an exit because the plan was carried out as well as it could be, but was fatally flawed. The others were examples of plans being scrapped and the new plans not being ready for prime time. That's an important disinction, IMO.
Why not go all out? Marty, Vermiel, Donald Trump and William Hung are all equally good/bad coaches, as none have won a SB for the Chiefs.
And don't put words in my mouth. I'm espousing a rational view of history. I've never espoused a return to bad decision making. that's just stupid.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 12:54 PM
Salient distinctions are not semantics. But I can understand you wanting to broaden the proposition to the point that it carries no impact.
Both were 1st round exits, but one was an exit because the plan was carried out as well as it could be, but was fatally flawed. The others were examples of plans being scrapped and the new plans not being ready for prime time. That's an important disinction, IMO.
Why not go all out? Marty, Vermiel, Donald Trump and William Hung are all equally good/bad coaches, as none have won a SB for the Chiefs.
And don't put words in my mouth. I'm espousing a rational view of history. I've never espoused a return to bad decision making. that's just stupid.

LOL...Salient distinctions...I like it, but again, it's nothing short of parsing. You find some sort of nobility in the playoff losses of 95 and 97 and nothing good about the loss of 2003. Fine, whatever. I dont see any difference.

I dont prefer to go back to 2003 or 1995 or 1997.

A rational view of history would not be complete without acknowledging that the playoff losses during Marty's tenure were the result of complete and totally embarrassing offensive performances coupled with boneheaded coaching decisions. Not to mention going a decade without a RB putting up 1000 yards in a season. The only wins were dispite Marty and because of Montana.

Again, as long as I can recall the game of football has been won due to scoring points. To do that requires and offense. Relying on converted FB's and shaky FG kickers is not going to do it. Hell, it wasnt until Brady showed up that NE became the dynasty they are today.

Gaz
01-05-2006, 12:59 PM
I NEVER want to see Martyball again.

That is why I am not enamored of Edwards in KC.

xoxo~
Gaz
Not interested in stepping backwards.

dj56dt58
01-05-2006, 01:02 PM
This article makes me ill...

I dont want to return to the days of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, 2 runs a pass and a punt, inability to get a first down to kill the clock, punting to give the ball back to the other team and 'putting it on the defense'.

That was 10 horrible years of football. Making the playoffs means nothing.
Except with the Chiefs now that wouldn't happen. We have LJ, he can run the ball all day long for I care. Can anyone stop him? Not that I have seen. The only difference would be maybe our Defense could acctually stop somebody. Martyball would be Perfect for Kc right now. We still have a great offensive line, we run the ball a lot w/ LJ, who nobody can stop. And Trent, who for right now is still our qb for at least another year, is still a very good QB who can convert on 3rd down. These are things kc didn't have very often when Marty was here ...

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 01:05 PM
You find some sort of nobility in the playoff losses of 95 and 97 and nothing good about the loss of 2003.
You have real problems with reading comprehension.
I have ascribed no nobility to any of the playoff losses. I was simply pointing out the different ways in which the failures came about. One was the stupidity of changing your successful gameplans in the playoffs without making sure that the conditions were appropriate and the preparedness of the team was adequate. The other was the stupidity of thinking there was an ever made offense that could carry a defense as sh!tty as we had. Both are stupidity.
I know that, for you, pretending that respecting Marty means being in agape love with his shortcomings makes it easier to argue your point. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is I respect the things he did well, and hoped like heck when he was our coach that he'd correct the things he didn't do well.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 01:09 PM
You have real problems with reading comprehension.
I have ascribed no nobility to any of the playoff losses. I was simply pointing out the different ways in which the failures came about. One was the stupidity of changing your successful gameplans in the playoffs without making sure that the conditions were appropriate and the preparedness of the team was adequate. The other was the stupidity of thinking there was an ever made offense that could carry a defense as sh!tty as we had. Both are stupidity.
I know that, for you, pretending that respecting Marty means being in agape love with his shortcomings makes it easier to argue your point. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is I respect the things he did well, and hoped like heck when he was our coach that he'd correct the things he didn't do well.

You've spent the afternoon taking me to task for boiling down the Marty years to what you just called stupid and I have reading comprehension problems?

Sorry, BL, I have zero respect for a coach that plays not to lose and I dont want that mentality back here ever again. It's obvious that almost a decade later that Marty still hasnt learned how to stop playing not to lose.

I guess I deserved the putting words in my mouth since I did it to you...I set a bad example, I apologize.

tomahawk kid
01-05-2006, 01:10 PM
You've spent the afternoon taking me to task for boiling down the Marty years to what you just called stupid and I have reading comprehension problems?

Sorry, BL, I have zero respect for a coach that plays not to lose and I dont want that mentality back here ever again. It's obvious that almost a decade later that Marty still hasnt learned how to stop playing not to lose.

I guess I deserved the putting words in my mouth since I did it to you...I set a bad example, I apologize.


Was this in the Lexicon?

:)

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 01:11 PM
Except with the Chiefs now that wouldn't happen. We have LJ, he can run the ball all day long for I care. Can anyone stop him? Not that I have seen. The only difference would be maybe our Defense could acctually stop somebody. Martyball would be Perfect for Kc right now. We still have a great offensive line, we run the ball a lot w/ LJ, who nobody can stop. And Trent, who for right now is still our qb for at least another year, is still a very good QB who can convert on 3rd down. These are things kc didn't have very often when Marty was here ...

Playing not to lose NEVER wins anything, 'good defense' or not. See 1995 and 1997.

The offensive line is aging and needs to be retooled and Green only has a year or two left, realistically.

If you bring in the Marty attitude toward offense, and I quote, 'not to turn the ball over', your offense goes downhill and Larry Johnson suddenly becomes as ineffective as Word or Okoye.

siberian khatru
01-05-2006, 01:11 PM
Martyball would be Perfect for Kc right now.

Nothing personal, this is just one of my pet peeves.

Martyball = playing not to lose (and losing). Getting conservative in the playoffs.

Maulball (i.e., smashmouth) = An aggressive power running game that uses play-action to set up the pass.

The Dallas Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls playing Maulball.

From 1992-95 (4 NFC Championship Games, 3 Super Bowls), the Cowboys ranked 4th, 6th, 1st and 4th in rushing attempts; 5th, 2nd, 5th and 2nd in rushing yards.

Over the same period, they ranked 12th, 24th, 26th and 28th in pass attempts; 7th, 9th, 17th and 17th in passing yards.

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 01:12 PM
You've spent the afternoon taking me to task for boiling down the Marty years to what you just called stupid and I have reading comprehension problems?

Sorry, BL, I have zero respect for a coach that plays not to lose and I dont want that mentality back here ever again. It's obvious that almost a decade later that Marty still hasnt learned how to stop playing not to lose.

I guess I deserved the putting words in my mouth since I did it to you...I set a bad example, I apologize.
I see words. I see emotion. I do not see a cogent thought.

Take a nap dude.

EDIT: with exacting scrutiny, I think I may have spied the germ of a thought. Yes, I've taken you to task for 'boiling' a decade of games into two glaring failures.
Saying Marty is nothing more than the 95 and 97 losses is as stupid as saying Bill Clinton is nothing more than a blow job from a fat chick.

tomahawk kid
01-05-2006, 01:14 PM
Nothing personal, this is just one of my pet peeves.

Martyball = playing not to lose (and losing). Getting conservative in the playoffs.

Maulball (i.e., smashmouth) = An aggressive power running game that uses play-action to set up the pass.

The Dallas Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls playing Maulball.

From 1992-95 (4 NFC Championship Games, 3 Super Bowls), the Cowboys ranked 4th, 6th, 1st and 4th in rushing attempts; 5th, 2nd, 5th and 2nd in rushing yards.

Over the same period, they ranked 12th, 24th, 26th and 28th in pass attempts; 7th, 9th, 17th and 17th in passing yards.

That's freaking eye opening.

I never would have thought Troy Aikman will get into the HOF via the "Bart Starr Rule", but these stats would seem to indicate that.....

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 01:17 PM
I see words. I see emotion. I do not see a cogent thought.

Take a nap dude.

Aww...dont give up so easy. Too bad Proctor isnt here to help you out.

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 01:19 PM
Aww...dont give up so easy. Too bad Proctor isnt here to help you out.
If the nap is not so appealing, feel free to GFY.
Flailing in the last throes of a losing argument by trying to tie me to a nutjob is a pretty classless maneuver.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 01:20 PM
That's freaking eye opening.

I never would have thought Troy Aikman will get into the HOF via the "Bart Starr Rule", but these stats would seem to indicate that.....

Indicate that he should or that he will?

I don't think he's deserving. He's Trent Green with a defense.

chiefsfan1963
01-05-2006, 01:22 PM
the bottom line is Carl needs to go!!!!!!!

Clark do the right thing and bring in new blood now don't wait until Carl's contract has expired! We will not win another Super Bowl until Carl is gone! Option 1 is not what people in KC want!!!!!!!!! They want a Super Bowl Title!!!!!!!!

tomahawk kid
01-05-2006, 01:24 PM
Indicate that he should or that he will?

I don't think he's deserving. He's Trent Green with a defense.

He will.

One of the highest profile QB's of that era, won mulitple SuperBowl's etc.

I was surprised that his passing numbers were that low.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 01:37 PM
If the nap is not so appealing, feel free to GFY.
Flailing in the last throes of a losing argument by trying to tie me to a nutjob is a pretty classless maneuver.

Losing arguement? Im not the one that talked myself into a circle and then served up the lame 'take a nap' line followed with a GFY.

I dont know why it is but you act just like Proctor when the subject of Marty comes up. Talk about irrational.

Thanks, for the suggestions, I'll take a pass.

If you want continue to try to debate with me how the Marty years were something great and going back to it is a good thing, feel free, but you will lose, again and again and again.

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 01:46 PM
I dont know why it is but you act just like Proctor when the subject of Marty comes up. Talk about irrational.
1. I don't act like Proctor, never have.
2. I respond to you whenever the issue of Marty comes up simply because you are not secure enough in your position to state the facts, and instead stack a load of bullshit in top, hoping your hyperbole gives you credibility.

Witness your first post to which I responded. "Marty's decade here was the worst football ever played and the offense was, at all times, the worst ever to take the field."

Hydrae
01-05-2006, 01:46 PM
Ok, call me crazy but I like 10 win seasons.

Each week when I turn on the game to watch the Chiefs, I want a win. Do I want playoff success and Super Bowl wins? Of course! But I am honestly not sure I could sit through 4 years of 3-13 to get it. I also don't think it is one or the other but that is another discussion I suppose.

So I vote for option 1. It makes for a boring January but certainly cheers up my September through December time period.

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 01:48 PM
Im [sic] not the one that talked myself into a circle
make your case.
I've never denied that the 95 and 97 playoff performances were disappointing efforts. My point has continually been to highlight the dishonesty in asserting that the entire Marty era was a carbon copy of those games. And your counterpoint is to insist that I want every game to be played like those two disappointing games, apparently because that's how skewed an argument has to be for you to feel confident in tackling it.

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 01:50 PM
Ok, call me crazy but I like 10 win seasons.


Can you tell me how many 10-6 teams have won the Super Bowl?

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 01:52 PM
1. I don't act like Proctor, never have.
2. I respond to you whenever the issue of Marty comes up simply because you are not secure enough in your position to state the facts, and instead stack a load of bullshit in top, hoping your hyperbole gives you credibility.

Witness your first post to which I responded. "Marty's decade here was the worst football ever played and the offense was, at all times, the worst ever to take the field."

LOL...Im quite secure, but I appreciate your concern.

I think I spotted your problem. You didnt read my post, because that's not what I said. Allow me to quote myself:

I dont want to return to the days of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, 2 runs a pass and a punt, inability to get a first down to kill the clock, punting to give the ball back to the other team and 'putting it on the defense'.

That was 10 horrible years of football. Making the playoffs means nothing.

I said nothing about the offense being the worst to ever take the field. My comments were directed at the mentality of playing not to lose.

Why you liked those days is beyond me, good defense or not. It's kind of like DT's record setting sack day--you know, KC LOST that game. One has to ask, how in the F! did KC lose a game where DT had 7 sacks? That whole decade was ironic like that.

Rausch
01-05-2006, 01:52 PM
make your case.
I've never denied that the 95 and 97 playoff performances were disappointing efforts. My point has continually been to lighlight the dishonesty in asserting that the entire Marty era was a carbon copy of those games.

Good point.

That would be spitting in the face of all the truly amazing talent we had on those teams.

And it's an even greater failure you when you consider that with that, he still couldn't kill the bunny...

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 01:53 PM
Ok, call me crazy but I like 10 win seasons.

So how'd this year turn out?

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 01:56 PM
make your case.
I've never denied that the 95 and 97 playoff performances were disappointing efforts. My point has continually been to highlight the dishonesty in asserting that the entire Marty era was a carbon copy of those games. And your counterpoint is to insist that I want every game to be played like those two disappointing games, apparently because that's how skewed an argument has to be for you to feel confident in tackling it.

The Marty era was one of failing to win the big games, lack of execution on both sides when KC needed it most. The playoff games were just the most glaring of them all.

nmt1
01-05-2006, 02:01 PM
Maulball (i.e., smashmouth) = An aggressive power running game that uses play-action to set up the pass.

The Dallas Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls playing Maulball.

The Cowboys of that era ran the same offense we do now. I expect ours to resemble that one even more now with Larry Johnson at RB.

Hydrae
01-05-2006, 02:01 PM
So how'd this year turn out?


I enjoyed most of it on a week to week basis. Am I disappointed we aren't playing this week? Of course I am especially after that fun game last weekend. I think this team would have been dangerous in the post season but we will never know.

How would you be feeling right now if this had been a 3-13 season?

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 02:01 PM
LOL...Im quite secure, but I appreciate your concern.
It's like arguing with Tom Cash. ;) - turnabout's fair play.

I think I spotted your problem. You didnt read my post, because that's not what I said. Allow me to quote myself:



I said nothing about the offense being the worst to ever take the field. My comments were directed at the mentality of playing not to lose.
OK, you got me, first TWO posts
The DV years were the exact converse of the Marty years. It wasnt much fun either, but going back to the Marty years of all D and no O, just flat sucks.
all D, no O? Comparing it to DV's years, when the D WAS the worst ever to take the field?

Why you liked those days is beyond me, good defense or not. It's kind of like DT's record setting sack day--you know, KC LOST that game. One has to ask, how in the F! did KC lose a game where DT had 7 sacks? That whole decade was ironic like that.
Because that 7 sack game happened once. Because it was a young team. Because they still won 11 games and went to the playoffs that year. How many times did Priest, or Larry or Trent set records only to lose with DV's D? How many times did the O set records only to not even MAKE the playoffs?

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 02:02 PM
Good point.

That would be spitting in the face of all the truly amazing talent we had on those teams.

And it's an even greater failure you when you consider that with that, he still couldn't kill the bunny...
We never had any talent, until Marty lucked into Joe Montana for a couple of years. :rolleyes:

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 02:04 PM
Marty didnt luck into Montana. Peterson traded for him...

It was shortly after that, that Marty wanted more personnel control, and we all know how that worked out. McGlockton, anyone?

HemiEd
01-05-2006, 02:05 PM
Ok, call me crazy but I like 10 win seasons.

Each week when I turn on the game to watch the Chiefs, I want a win. Do I want playoff success and Super Bowl wins? Of course! But I am honestly not sure I could sit through 4 years of 3-13 to get it. I also don't think it is one or the other but that is another discussion I suppose.

So I vote for option 1. It makes for a boring January but certainly cheers up my September through December time period.


Exactly the way I feel, I prefer to enjoy the journey.

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 02:06 PM
Marty didnt luck into Montana. Peterson traded for him...

It was shortly after that, that Marty wanted more personnel control, and we all know how that worked out. McGlockton, anyone?
Lucked into him, had him forced on him kicking and screaming against the mere POSSIBILITY of playing offense. It's all the same.

siberian khatru
01-05-2006, 02:08 PM
The Cowboys of that era ran the same offense we do now. I expect ours to resemble that one even more now with Larry Johnson at RB.

Exactly.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 02:10 PM
OK, you got me, first TWO posts

all D, no O? Comparing it to DV's years, when the D WAS the worst ever to take the field?


Because that 7 sack game happened once. Because it was a young team. Because they still won 11 games and went to the playoffs that year. How many times did Priest, or Larry or Trent set records only to lose with DV's D? How many times did the O set records only to not even MAKE the playoffs?

TomCash, that's cute...I dont recall his anti Marty positions, but I digress.

Ok, you got me, so if we start getting into the statistical minutae yes, the Marty offense was never ranked 32. Wonderful! That still doesnt mean they couldnt get it done when it meant the most.

While I appreciate the statistical diversion, the point remains that Marty played not to lose and lost when it meant the most.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 02:12 PM
Lucked into him, had him forced on him kicking and screaming against the mere POSSIBILITY of playing offense. It's all the same.

LOL...isn't that a Salient Distinction? Poor Marty, his only 2 playoff wins in KC were forced upon him. That's just too bad. Im sorry you didnt enjoy them.

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 02:13 PM
TomCash, that's cute...I dont recall his anti Marty positions, but I digress.

Ok, you got me, so if we start getting into the statistical minutae yes, the Marty offense was never ranked 32. Wonderful! That still doesnt mean they couldnt get it done when it meant the most.

While I appreciate the statistical diversion, the point remains that Marty played not to lose and lost when it meant the most.
Translation: My original point was bunk, so I'll try to assert a new point as if it were my original and start the discussion anew. Tom and Meme had a kid, and he grew up to be the planet archivist. ;)

Dave Lane
01-05-2006, 02:15 PM
I NEVER want to see Martyball again.

That is why I am not enamored of Edwards in KC.

xoxo~
Gaz
Not interested in stepping backwards.



Here Here!!!

Dave

Saunders and an attack DC work for me.

nmt1
01-05-2006, 02:17 PM
Exactly.

I understand where you're coming from but those Cowboys teams could throw the ball regardless of where they were ranked. Aikman to Irvin/Harper/Novacheck(sp?)/Johnston was as lethal a passing game as we've got now if not better, regardless of statistics.
It all starts on the line for us just like the early 90's Cowboys. We need to continue to find great linemen in order for our offensive success to continue whatever our strategy is...pass it 60 times a game or run it 35 times a game.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 02:17 PM
Translation: My original point was bunk, so I'll try to assert a new point as if it were my original and start the discussion anew. Tom and Meme had a kid, and he grew up to be the planet archivist. ;)

LOL...no my original point was not bunk. While you scurry off to find your obscure point in my 3rd post, my first post said it all and you took issue with it.

Im sorry I dont like your hero and his football philsophy of playing not to lose, I really am. Maybe one day you'll come to understand.

*edit*

Ok, BL's used Tom Cash and denise, I want to put money on a Slayer or Nick Athan reference.

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 02:20 PM
Im sorry I dont like your hero and his football philsophy of playing not to lose, I really am. Maybe one day you'll come to understand.
While it's a different point, I will point out that there's a difference between playing not to lose and playing to your strengths. Marty failed relying on his defense. Billick won a SB the EXACT same way. Dungy took the Bucs to the NFC championship, and a c@nthair from the SB the same way. Chuckie then took the Bucs to the SB and demolished the Raiders the same way.
I don't want Marty back. That chapter has closed. But I want respect for what he tried to accomplish, and I want someone who'll take the Chiefs and apply Marty v2.0, as the Ravens and Bucs did at a few years back.

chiefsfan1963
01-05-2006, 02:21 PM
don't panic, promote AS, stay the course, keep improving, don't give up draft picks, we'll be a playoff team and super bowl contender if we follow this path.

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 02:24 PM
Ok, BL's used Tom Cash and denise, I want to put money on a Slayer or Nick Athan reference.
Those references were not random. You were the one who first went with the 'I'm secure in my dumbassery' technique, then followed it with 'I'll squiggle my way out of losing proposition' gambit.

siberian khatru
01-05-2006, 02:29 PM
I understand where you're coming from but those Cowboys teams could throw the ball regardless of where they were ranked. Aikman to Irvin/Harper/Novacheck(sp?)/Johnston was as lethal a passing game as we've got now if not better, regardless of statistics.
It all starts on the line for us just like the early 90's Cowboys. We need to continue to find great linemen in order for our offensive success to continue whatever our strategy is...pass it 60 times a game or run it 35 times a game.

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.

My point was that an emphasis on running the ball does not necessarily equal a bland, conservative, punchless offense (i.e, Marty's Chiefs teams). You can run the ball a lot and still be potent through the air and wrack up points and win games and reach the Super Bowl. And that we have the personnel to do that even if Al Saunders leaves.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 02:34 PM
Those references were not random. You were the one who first went with the 'I'm secure in my dumbassery' technique, then followed it with 'I'll squiggle my way out of losing proposition' gambit.

Oh, silly me...and I thought it was just cheesy name calling using the most demonized posters on the BB.

Ive not squiggled one bit from my first post, rather it has been you that got me on the statistical slip up on my 3rd post. I congratulate you for finding that small ledge to hang from.

My point is and always will continue to be that when it was a must win, Marty shat himself on multiple occasions, the playoffs being the prime example.

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 02:36 PM
Oh, silly me...and I thought it was just cheesy name calling using the most demonized posters on the BB.

Ive not squiggled one bit from my first post, rather it has been you that got me on the statistical slip up on my 3rd post. I congratulate you for finding that small ledge to hang from.

My point is and always will continue to be that when it was a must win, Marty shat himself on multiple occasions, the playoffs being the prime example.
The record stands for itself. I'll trust you not to go back and edit it. I'll just assume that goes against the archivist's code. :thumb:

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 02:36 PM
While it's a different point, I will point out that there's a difference between playing not to lose and playing to your strengths. Marty failed relying on his defense. Billick won a SB the EXACT same way. Dungy took the Bucs to the NFC championship, and a c@nthair from the SB the same way. Chuckie then took the Bucs to the SB and demolished the Raiders the same way.
I don't want Marty back. That chapter has closed. But I want respect for what he tried to accomplish, and I want someone who'll take the Chiefs and apply Marty v2.0, as the Ravens and Bucs did at a few years back.

Why...he didnt accomplish anything. Most wins in the 90's doesnt do it for me. Sorry.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 02:37 PM
The record stands for itself. I'll trust you not to go back and edit it.

Im not worried about my posts...I'll let you make all the changes you want to yours. It might help.

milkman
01-05-2006, 02:37 PM
Nothing personal, this is just one of my pet peeves.

Martyball = playing not to lose (and losing). Getting conservative in the playoffs.

Maulball (i.e., smashmouth) = An aggressive power running game that uses play-action to set up the pass.

The Dallas Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls playing Maulball.

From 1992-95 (4 NFC Championship Games, 3 Super Bowls), the Cowboys ranked 4th, 6th, 1st and 4th in rushing attempts; 5th, 2nd, 5th and 2nd in rushing yards.

Over the same period, they ranked 12th, 24th, 26th and 28th in pass attempts; 7th, 9th, 17th and 17th in passing yards.

You're wasting your time khat.

I've been trying to point out this distinction for years.
People just find it virtually impossible to recognize the distinction.

siberian khatru
01-05-2006, 02:39 PM
You're wasting your time khat.

I've been trying to point out this distinction for years.
People just find it virtually impossible to recognize the distinction.

The only person I've seen who's actively hostile to it is keg.

MOhillbilly
01-05-2006, 02:40 PM
Saunders as HC Solari as OC and Gunther as DC. I dont want to give up picks,i dont want to have a new staff teaching new things. And ive almost convinced myself that if Saunders and Solari stay the oldfarts will give it one more go.
Bring in a new HC and OC and i think Roaf,Shields,Kennison,and Richardson could all part ways and im confident weigman,green & gonzales would the next year.

Tweak the D line take a hard look at Bell and make some moves at WR,but dont jack around w/ whats worked.
Ive read Saunders is much more the hard ass than Vermiel which suits me just fine.

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 02:42 PM
Martyball = playing not to lose (and losing). Getting conservative in the playoffs.

Maulball (i.e., smashmouth) = An aggressive power running game that uses play-action to set up the pass.
How exactly did Okoye gain the characterization [however short it's duration d/t wearing down] as Mr. Power runner? How exactly did Deberg gain the characterization as king of the play action pass?

nmt1
01-05-2006, 02:54 PM
I don't disagree with any of that. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.

My point was that an emphasis on running the ball does not necessarily equal a bland, conservative, punchless offense (i.e, Marty's Chiefs teams). You can run the ball a lot and still be potent through the air and wrack up points and win games and reach the Super Bowl. And that we have the personnel to do that even if Al Saunders leaves.

Not disagreeing with you.
Isn't it ironic that our offense now does what Marty tried to do for many years with little success? Guess we really do need a decent QB to go with a stong Oline and RB.

milkman
01-05-2006, 02:55 PM
The only person I've seen who's actively hostile to it is keg.

True.

But there are a number of people that simply refuse to acknowledge the existentence of that distinction, and just go on posting the same old BS as though it has never been explained.

siberian khatru
01-05-2006, 02:55 PM
How exactly did Okoye gain the characterization [however short it's duration d/t wearing down] as Mr. Power runner? How exactly did Deberg gain the characterization as king of the play action pass?

You completely missed the point. Completely.

Martyball does not equal running the ball. It refers to being conservative, playing not to lose.

Marty ran the ball and ran play action -- then undermined it with horrendous tactical decisions.

People think maulball = running the ball = conservative = Marty.

We can play maulball without falling into Martyball.

Maulball is an offensive philosophy. Martyball is a coaching style.

Baby Lee
01-05-2006, 02:58 PM
You completely missed the point Completely.

Martyball does not equal running the ball. It refers to being conservative, playing not to lose.

Marty ran the ball and ran play action -- then undermined it with horrendous tactical decisions.

People think maulball = running the ball = conservative = Marty.

We can play maulball without falling into Martyball.

Maulball is an offensive philosophy. Martyball is a coaching style.
My point is, you make this distinction between Martyball and Maullball, when Marty coached a team that, for a period, had two who were known throughout the league the best at the two things you state as defining Maullball. AND they gained that distinction UNDER Marty. Just wondering how that was possible.
Don't tell me, Marty's coaching style led to the phantom holding call on Okoye's big run that put us in position to beat Miami in the playoffs. His 'play not to lose' ways led him to instruct John Alt to make it look like holding to put Lowery's feet to the fire.

FringeNC
01-05-2006, 03:02 PM
Martyball is a coaching style.

I think it is more than just a tactical coaching style. Marty's teams were built to exploit the mistakes of bad teams. When we faced good teams in the playoffs, we lost, because they didn't beat themselves.

siberian khatru
01-05-2006, 03:03 PM
My point is, you make this distinction between Martyball and Maullball, when Marty coached a team that, for a period, had two who were known throughout the league the best at the two things you state as defining Maullball. AND they gained that distinction UNDER Marty. Just wondering how that was possible.

As I said: Marty undermined maulball -- an offensive philosophy -- with a losing coaching philosophy (poor tactical decisions).

He got conservative with it. You don't have to be conservative with maulball.

siberian khatru
01-05-2006, 03:04 PM
I think it is more than just a tactical coaching style. Marty's teams were built to exploit the mistakes of bad teams. When we faced good teams in the playoffs, we lost, because they didn't beat themselves.

That too. A lot of things went wrong back then.

Rausch
01-05-2006, 03:05 PM
As I said: Marty undermined maulball -- an offensive philosophy -- with a losing coaching philosophy (poor tactical decisions).

He got conservative with it. You don't have to be conservative with maulball.

Exactly.

I'd welcome back smashmouth football in a heartbeat...

milkshock
01-05-2006, 04:50 PM
Exactly.

I'd welcome back smashmouth football in a heartbeat...

I wouldn't. Generally speaking, smashmouth football teams, for whatever reason, tend to have their offensive deficiencies masked by smothering defenses.

stevieray
01-05-2006, 04:53 PM
Sweet. Get the hell out of here.

It sure was sweet. I got to paint two players and an NFL logo.

what did you do today?

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 05:09 PM
It sure was sweet. I got to paint two players and an NFL logo.

what did you do today?

I put another coat of paint on the Sistine Chapel.

stevieray
01-05-2006, 05:13 PM
I put another coat of paint on the Sistine Chapel.

I bet that pays well. did they give you hazordous duty pay for exerting energy?

Count Alex's Losses
01-05-2006, 05:14 PM
I bet that pays well. did they give you hazordous duty pay for exerting energy?

I did it for free. I'm a true "artiste."

stevieray
01-05-2006, 05:15 PM
I did it for free. I'm a true "artiste."

what is a true artiste?